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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Non Final Office Action on the on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 6/25/2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: adjustment direction determination module, first adjustment position determination module, second adjustment position determination module, and position adjustment module in claim 8.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see P [0108]-[0113] which establishes a processor having memory carries the program modules of claim 8
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-4, 7 12-13, and 17-18 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 3 recites the limitation "the adjustment position" in regards to determining a degree of influence of each joint on an adjustment of a robotic arm. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 defines “a first adjustment position” and “a second adjustment position”, so it becomes unclear what “the adjustment position” exactly refers to.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner understands that the claim means to determine a degree of influence for every joint, including for redundant and task joints. Therefore the claim will be understood to recite “determining a degree of influence of each joint on a robotic arm position adjustment based on a preset position conversion relationship”. Claim 3 appears to recite a method for assigning redundant joints out of a total set of joints, and therefore, a new term for overall position adjustment is necessary to show that the adjustment position in this claim limitation comes before the first and second adjustment positions have been defined.
Claims 4, 12-13, and 17-18 are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency on a rejected based claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the redundant joint" in regards to a determination that one of two sub-robotic arms does not comprise a redundant joint. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim language implies that there is a singular redundant joint that only one of the sub-robotic arms comprises. Instead, the claim appears to initiate a check for whether one of the sub-robotic arms has any redundant joints, and then in response to that sub-robotic arm having no redundant joints, a third adjustment position is found for each of its joints. Therefore, in the interest of compact prosecution, each instance of “comprise the redundant joint” will be interpreted as “comprise any redundant joints”. There are three such instances, and similarly the phrase “a sub-robotic arm that comprises the redundant joint” will be understood to mean “a sub-robotic arm that comprises redundant joints”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Phillips (Document ID: US 20210121255 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Phillips teaches a robotic arm adjustment method, comprising:
determining an adjustment direction of each redundant joint of a plurality of joints of a robotic arm when it is determined that the robotic arm is located within or near an abnormal operating area (see at least P [0059]: “Once the joint angle crosses the threshold, i.e. the joint angle moves into the specified range, towards a joint angle to be avoided or towards a limit on the rotation of that joint, action can start to be taken.” The action then, is to “optimise the pose or configuration of a robot arm based on one or more constraint on motion or positioning of the robot arm.” as in P [0062]. P [0153] discuses determining an adjustment direction “for the angles of J1 to J4”, which can be considered the redundant joints);
determining a first adjustment position of each redundant joint at a next moment on the basis of a redundant joint position of each redundant joint at a current moment and the adjustment direction of each redundant joint (as seen in FIG. 6 and P [0151] both “the determined adjustment signal”, or adjustment direction, as well as the “current angles” are obtained for determining the “desired joint angles”);
determining a second adjustment position of each task joint of the plurality of joints except the redundant joints on the basis of each first adjustment position (see at least FIG. 6 and at least P [0151] wherein the “k joints” are the task joints, and the same procedure is performed. Note also the disclosure considers it possible to separate the joints or complete the determinations and measurements simultaneously);
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint (see at least P [0154]: “The calculated drive signals are then used to drive one or more joints of the robot arm.”).
Regarding claim 2, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 1, and Phillips further teaches a method for determining that the robotic arm is located within the abnormal operating area comprises:
obtaining a robotic arm position threshold for a normal operating area of the robotic arm, and determining a joint position threshold range for each joint of the robotic arm based on a preset position conversion relationship and the robotic arm position threshold (see at least P [0066]-[0067] which discuss constraints for joint states and specify that “A difference between the threshold and the current joint angle can be determined.” Note in P [0060] a preset position conversion relation is established through the discussion of “a combination of joint angles rather than a single joint angle can lead to an undesirable arm configuration.” Similarly “A singularity can be said to occur where a robot's Jacobian matrix loses rank (i.e. the determinant is zero). This can happen when multiple joint axes become aligned.”);
determining a joint position of each joint at a current moment, and comparing the joint position with the joint position threshold range for each joint (see at least P [0067]: “The constraint can be represented in the control system by a feedback loop. The current state of the joint (here, the joint angle) can be determined and compared to the threshold of the range of joint angles which signify that the constraint condition is met”);
determining that the robotic arm is located within the abnormal operating area in the case where a certain joint position is not within the joint position threshold range for a certain joint (see at least P [0059]: “the action taken suitably depends on where within that range the joint angle is. Greater corrective action can be taken where the joint angle is closer to the angle to be avoided.” Corrective action is needed when the joint is not within the threshold position and approaches the angle to be avoided).
Regarding claim 8, Phillips teaches a robotic arm adjustment apparatus, comprising:
an adjustment direction determination module (see at least FIG. 2 for modules “provided in a control unit for controlling a robot arm” (P [0069]), executed by processor 310), configured to determine an adjustment direction of each redundant joint of a plurality of joints of a robotic arm when it is determined that the robotic arm is located within or near an abnormal operating area (see at least P [0059]: “Once the joint angle crosses the threshold, i.e. the joint angle moves into the specified range, towards a joint angle to be avoided or towards a limit on the rotation of that joint, action can start to be taken.” The action then, is to “optimise the pose or configuration of a robot arm based on one or more constraint on motion or positioning of the robot arm.” as in P [0062]. P [0153] discuses determining an adjustment direction “for the angles of J1 to J4”, which can be considered the redundant joints);
a first adjustment position determination module (see at least FIG. 2 for modules “provided in a control unit for controlling a robot arm” (P [0069]), executed by processor 310), configured to determine a first adjustment position of each redundant joint at a next moment on the basis of a redundant joint position of each redundant joint at a current moment and the adjustment direction of each redundant joint (as seen in FIG. 6 and P [0151] both “the determined adjustment signal”, or adjustment direction, as well as the “current angles” are obtained for determining the “desired joint angles”);
a second adjustment position determination module (see at least FIG. 2 for modules “provided in a control unit for controlling a robot arm” (P [0069]), executed by processor 310), configured to determine a second adjustment position of each task joint of the plurality of joints except the redundant joints on the basis of each first adjustment position (see at least FIG. 6 and at least P [0151] wherein the “k joints” are the task joints, and the same procedure is performed. Note also the disclosure considers it possible to separate the joints or complete the determinations and measurements simultaneously);
a position adjustment module (see at least FIG. 2 for modules “provided in a control unit for controlling a robot arm” (P [0069]), executed by processor 310), configured to perform position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint (see at least P [0154]: “The calculated drive signals are then used to drive one or more joints of the robot arm.”).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 1, and Phillips further teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (processor 310);
a storage device, configured to store at least one program (memory 311, see P [0093]);
when the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to implement the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim l (see at least P [0093]: “The memory 311 stores in a non-transient way software that is executable by the processor to control the operation of the motors 307 to cause the arm 300 to operate in the manner described herein”).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 1, and Phillips further teaches
a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 1 (see at least P [0044]: “According to another aspect of the present invention there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform the method as described herein.”).
Regarding claim 11, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 2, and Phillips further teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (processor 310);
a storage device, configured to store at least one program (memory 311, see P [0093]);
when the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to implement the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 2 (see at least P [0093]: “The memory 311 stores in a non-transient way software that is executable by the processor to control the operation of the motors 307 to cause the arm 300 to operate in the manner described herein”).
Regarding claim 16, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 2, and Phillips further teaches
a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 2 (see at least P [0044]: “According to another aspect of the present invention there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform the method as described herein.”).
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) 3-4, 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Nakajima et al., hereinafter Nakajima (Document ID: US2005143860A1).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 1, and Phillips further teaches before determining an adjustment direction of each redundant joint of a plurality of joints of the robotic arm, further comprising:
obtaining the number of constraints of the robotic arm during a surgery and the number of joints of the plurality of joints of the robotic arm (see at least P [0124]: “Input parameters 502 relating to the state of the robot arm and the thresholds corresponding to one or more constraint conditions are received by an elbow manager 504.” See also P [0140]: “The techniques herein enable constraints to be added, modified and removed easily”, indicating that the number of constraints are known. Finally, see P [0144] which establishes that there are n joints in the robotic arm);
Phillips teaches in P [0034] that the joints are partitioned into a number of joints, and determining the number of redundant joints of the robotic arm based on the number of joints, as “k<n”. In P [0062] Phillips discloses that “Techniques described herein can be used to optimise the pose or configuration of a robot arm based on one or more constraint on motion or positioning of the robot arm.” But Phillips does not explicitly teach determining the number of redundant joints of the robotic arm based on the number of constraints as well.
Instead Phillips teaches in P [0065] that “whilst the instrument is inside a patient abdomen” the arm is further constrained. “Such constraints can reduce the effective number of degrees of freedom of the arm. Constraints on the motion and/or configuration of the arm include avoiding configurations which approach or reach singularities (where the number of degrees of freedom of movement of the robot arm is reduced) or joint limits”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of constraints and its effect on degrees of freedom of the arm of Phillips with a determination of the number of redundant joints in order to maintain ideal shaft positions or avoid collisions as in P [0065] of Phillips.
In view of the modification, Phillips further teaches in P [0091] that “different constraints may cause an adjustment to the same joint,” and the ability to prioritize certain constraints for a single joint in order to “[control] the behaviour of the arm…as desired.” Modified Phillips does not, however, explicitly teach
determining a degree of influence of each joint on the adjustment position based on a preset position conversion relationship;
determining each redundant joint of the plurality of joints based on the number of redundant joints and the degree of influence.
Instead, Nakajima, whose invention pertains to a method of controlling a redundant manipulator, teaches in P [0013] the use of an “evaluating function” that is used to determine the degree of influence of each joint on a robotic arm position adjustment based on angles between the joints as a preset position conversion relationship. Then, in P [0062] an objective is to assign “m number of redundant joints… so as to minimize (optimize) an evaluating function F.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the granular joint level control and redundant joints of Phillips with the redundant joint number classification optimization of Nakajima in order to calculate "the solution of the inverse kinematics problem required for controlling a robot as a numerical solution at high-speed" without "restric[ing] an available manipulator" (P [0068] of Nakajima).
Regarding claim 4, modified Phillips teaches the method according to claim 3, and in view of the modification, Phillips further teaches determining an adjustment direction of each redundant joint of a plurality of joints of the robotic arm comprises:
determining, for a certain redundant joint at a current moment, a direction corresponding to a current redundant joint when moving the robotic arm away from the abnormal operating area as an adjustment direction of the current redundant joint based on a positional relationship between the current redundant joint and the abnormal operating area (see at least P [0078]: “The difference_value 210 is a quantitative indication of how close the joint state gets to the predetermined joint state. More generally, the difference_value is a quantitative measure of how close the arm configuration gets to the undesirable configuration. As the difference_value increases, it indicates an increasingly undesirable system state. The adjuster can be configured to determine the adjustment proportional to the calculated difference_value. In this way, as the arm configuration gets closer to an undesirable state, the difference_value increases, and the adjustment increases correspondingly.” This process is defined for redundant and task joints.).
Regarding claim 6, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 1, and Phillips further teaches determining a second adjustment position of each task joint of the plurality of joints except the redundant joints on the basis of each first adjustment position comprises:
obtaining constraints for the robotic arm during a surgery (see at least P [0124]: “Input parameters 502 relating to the state of the robot arm and the thresholds corresponding to one or more constraint conditions are received by an elbow manager 504.” See also P [0140]: “The techniques herein enable constraints to be added, modified and removed easily”,);
Though Phillips teaches interaction between joint adjustment positions for task joints and redundant joints in at least P [0061] which indicates that “the combinations of angles of one or more groups of joints can be considered to represent constraints on the arm configuration.”, as well as in FIG. 4, Phillips does not explicitly teach
determining a second adjustment position corresponding to each task joint based on the constraints and each first adjustment position.
Instead, Nakajima teaches in P [0033] a process for “non-redundant joints… if the redundant joint is handled as a parameter in the case of a redundant manipulator.” More specifically, P [0054] define the constraints for the robotic arm, and from P [0056]-[0058] an iterative process is used for determining adjustment positions of “the non-redundant joints”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the joint planning based on constraints of Phillips with the task joint planning based on redundant joints and constraints of Nakajima in order to calculate "the solution of the inverse kinematics problem required for controlling a robot as a numerical solution at high-speed" without "restric[ing] an available manipulator" (P [0068] of Nakajima).
Regarding claim 12, modified Phillips teaches the method according to claim 3, and Phillips further teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (processor 310);
a storage device, configured to store at least one program (memory 311, see P [0093]);
when the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to implement the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 3 (see at least P [0093]: “The memory 311 stores in a non-transient way software that is executable by the processor to control the operation of the motors 307 to cause the arm 300 to operate in the manner described herein”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Phillips teaches the method according to claim 4, and Phillips further teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (processor 310);
a storage device, configured to store at least one program (memory 311, see P [0093]);
when the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to implement the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 4 (see at least P [0093]: “The memory 311 stores in a non-transient way software that is executable by the processor to control the operation of the motors 307 to cause the arm 300 to operate in the manner described herein”).
Regarding claim 15, modified Phillips teaches the method according to claim 6, and Phillips further teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (processor 310);
a storage device, configured to store at least one program (memory 311, see P [0093]);
when the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to implement the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 6 (see at least P [0093]: “The memory 311 stores in a non-transient way software that is executable by the processor to control the operation of the motors 307 to cause the arm 300 to operate in the manner described herein”); or
comprising:
at least one processor;
a storage device, configured to store at least one program;
when the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to implement the following robotic arm adjustment method:
determining an adjustment direction of each redundant joint of a plurality of joints of a robotic arm when it is determined that the robotic arm is located within or near an abnormal operating area;
determining a first adjustment position of each redundant joint at a next moment on the basis of a redundant joint position of each redundant joint at a current moment and the adjustment direction of each redundant joint;
determining a second adjustment position of each task joint of the plurality of joints except the redundant joints on the basis of each first adjustment position;
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint;
wherein the robotic arm comprises two functionally independent sub-robotic arms;
in the case where a sub-robotic arm does not comprise the redundant joint, the method further comprises:
determining a third adjustment position of each joint in the sub-robotic arm that does not comprise the redundant joint on the basis of constraints for the robotic arm during a surgery;
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint comprises
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint in a sub-robotic arm that comprises the redundant joint, as well as the third adjustment position of each joint in the sub- robotic arm that does not comprise the redundant joint.
Examiner Note: the limitations of claim 15 without art applied have been indicated as optional in the method step, and are therefore treated as such.
Regarding claim 17, modified Phillips teaches the method according to claim 3, and Phillips further teaches
a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 3 (see at least P [0044]: “According to another aspect of the present invention there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform the method as described herein.”).
Regarding claim 18, modified Phillips teaches the method according to claim 4, and Phillips further teaches
a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 4 (see at least P [0044]: “According to another aspect of the present invention there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform the method as described herein.”).
Regarding claim 20, modified Phillips teaches the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 6, and Phillips further teaches
a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 6 (see at least P [0044]: “According to another aspect of the present invention there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform the method as described herein.”); or
when executed by a processor, implements the following robotic arm adjustment method:
determining an adjustment direction of each redundant joint of a plurality of joints of a robotic arm when it is determined that the robotic arm is located within or near an abnormal operating area;
determining a first adjustment position of each redundant joint at a next moment on the basis of a redundant joint position of each redundant joint at a current moment and the adjustment direction of each redundant joint;
determining a second adjustment position of each task joint of the plurality of joints except the redundant joints on the basis of each first adjustment position;
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint;
wherein the robotic arm comprises two functionally independent sub-robotic arms;
in the case where a sub-robotic arm does not comprise the redundant joint, the method further comprises:
determining a third adjustment position of each joint in the sub-robotic arm that does not comprise the redundant joint on the basis of constraints for the robotic arm during a surgery;
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint comprises:
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint in a sub-robotic arm that comprises the redundant joint, as well as the third adjustment position of each joint in the sub- robotic arm that does not comprise the redundant joint.
Examiner Note: the limitations of claim 20 without art applied have been indicated as optional in the method step, and are therefore treated as such.
Claim(s) 5, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips.
Regarding claim 5, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 1, and Phillips further teaches determining a first adjustment position of each redundant joint at a next moment on the basis of a redundant joint position of each redundant joint at a current moment and the adjustment direction of each redundant joint comprises: obtaining an adjustment speed of the redundant joint, and determining a first adjustment position of the redundant joint at a next moment based on the redundant joint position, the adjustment direction, and the preset adjustment speed in at least P [0083]-[0084] wherein a state signal is used for finding a joint position and adjustment direction, and “the adjustment signal can take the form of a signed scalar speed of rotation of a particular joint”.
Phillips is not explicitly teaching that the adjustment speed is a preset adjustment speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the scalar speed of rotation of a particular joint of Phillips with a preset speed of in order to move a joint in a robotic manipulator as desired, and "reduce the risk that an inadvertent movement of the arm could affect the operation of the end effector" as in P [0083].
Regarding claim 14, modified Phillips teaches the method according to claim 5, and Phillips further teaches an electronic device, comprising:
at least one processor (processor 310);
a storage device, configured to store at least one program (memory 311, see P [0093]);
when the at least one program is executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor is caused to implement the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 5 (see at least P [0093]: “The memory 311 stores in a non-transient way software that is executable by the processor to control the operation of the motors 307 to cause the arm 300 to operate in the manner described herein”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Phillips teaches the method according to claim 5, and Phillips further teaches
a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program which, when executed by a processor, implements the robotic arm adjustment method according to claim 5 (see at least P [0044]: “According to another aspect of the present invention there is provided a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer readable instructions that, when executed at a computer system, cause the computer system to perform the method as described herein.”).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips in view of Usui (Document ID: US2020197108A1).
Regarding claim 7, Phillips teaches the method according to claim 1, and Phillips further teaches in P [0065] the use of “multiple arms” for the constraint and movement method. But Phillips does not explicitly teach two functionally independent sub-robotic arms.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the robotic arm and constraint adjustment method of Phillips with two functionally independent sub-robotic arms in order to execute a design choice to implement 2 arms as a multiple arm robotic system. The system of Phillips is then able to avoid "potential collision between multiple arms," as in P [0065].
Modified Phillips does not teach, however:
in the case where a sub-robotic arm does not comprise the redundant joint, the method further comprises:
determining a third adjustment position of each joint in the sub-robotic arm that does not comprise the redundant joint on the basis of constraints for the robotic arm during a surgery;
Instead, Usui, whose invention pertains to harmonized operation of a plurality of medical support arms, teaches in P [0186] “the constraint condition includes information regarding generated force, priority, the presence or absence of an unactuated joint”. In [0206] a case where “an unactuated joint is not provided”, the unactuated joint(s) acting as redundant joints. Then, Usui performs individual joint control as seen in P [0210] “the movement of each of the joint portions 421 a to 421 f is modeled”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the joint planning for a robotic arm with multiple constraints of Phillips with the arms with or without unactuated joints of Usui in order to exercise a design choice to provide multiple configurations for cooperating individually joint actuated surgical robots, such as in the case of a fixed base robot in P [0206] of Usui.
Finally, in view of the modification, Phillips teaches
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint comprises:
performing position adjustment on the robotic arm on the basis of the first adjustment position of each redundant joint and the second adjustment position of each task joint in a sub-robotic arm that comprises the redundant joint, as well as the third adjustment position of each joint in the sub- robotic arm that does not comprise the redundant joint (FIG. 6 shows the determination of desired joint angles for all n joints and the calculation of corresponding drive signals. In view of the modification with Usui, the process of position adjustment in Phillips would follow the same procedure, especially since “A potential collision between multiple arms can also be considered as a constraint” in P [0065] of Phillips).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20240268911 A1
Invention pertains to adjusting a robot in response to the torque felt by the surgical robotic arm.
Document ID: US 20190192238 A1
Invention pertains to a surgical arm unit capable of responding to malfunctions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights