DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The specification, the abstract and the drawings are all acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,506,487 to Young, and in view of USPN 10,292,887 to Kang.
As to claim 1, Young teaches a driver circuit (fig. 1: “118”) coupled to the motor (fig. 1: “120”) and a shunting circuit (fig. 1: “156”, “160”) coupled to the driver circuit (fig. 1: “118”) and configured to shunt the driver circuit for a set amount of time to stop the motor, the shunting circuit comprising a capacitor and a first resistor, the capacitor and first resistor having an RC time constant, wherein the set amount of time corresponds to the RC time constant(col. 9: lines 22-33 wherein apparatus and method are taught for a motor control system having a capacitor and a resistor and the capacitor and resistor having an RC time constant wherein the set amount of time corresponds to the RC time constant).
Young does not teach a medical system comprising a motor of a robotic component.
Kang teaches a medical system comprising a motor of a robotic component(col. 1: lines 45-59).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Kang into Young since Young suggests a motor control system and Kang suggests the beneficial use of a motor as a robotic component in a medical system in the analogous art of motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Young teaches a motor control system which can be used to improve the robotic medical system disclosed by Kang.
As to claim 7, Young in view of Kang teaches the medical system of claim 1, wherein the robotic component comprises a robotic arm wherein the motor controls a joint of the robot arm(Kang col. 1: lines 45-59).
As to claim 8, Young in view of Kang teaches the medical system of claim 7, wherein the robotic arm is backdrivable after the set amount of time(Kang col. 3: lines 65 – col. 4: lines 4).
As to claim 10, Young in view of Kang teaches the medical system of claim 1. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art for a medical system to test everything including but not limiting to the shunting circuit in the start-up process.
As to claim 19, it is rejected as the same reason as claim 1 because its claim limitations are essentially the same as claim 1.
5. Claims 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,506,487 to Young in view of USPN 10,292,887 to Kang, and further in view of USPN 9,969,269 to Nomura.
As to claim 6, Young in view of Kang teaches the medical system of claim 1 wherein the shunting circuit (fig. 1: “156”, “160”) shunts the driver circuit (fig. 1:“118”) by creating a path to electrical ground via the set of diodes(fig. 1: see the set of diodes in “156” & “160”).
Young in view of Kang does not teach the driver circuit comprises a set of diodes in parallel with a set of phase transistors.
Nomura teaches the driver circuit comprises a set of diodes in parallel with a set of phase transistors(fig. 2: “210”, “220” wherein the inverter circuit has a set of diodes in parallel with a set of phase transistors).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Nomura into Young in view of Kang since Young in view of Kang suggests a motor control system and Nomura suggests the beneficial use of a set of diodes in parallel with a set of phase transistors in the analogous art of motor control technology.
The motivation for this comes from the fact that Nomura teaches a set of diodes in parallel with a set of phase transistors which can be used to improve the motor control system disclosed by Young in view of Kang.
As to claim 9, Young in view of Kang and Nomura teaches the medical system wherein the motor comprises a three-phase motor(Nomura fig. 2: “10”), and wherein the driver circuit comprises a set of transistors for each phase of the motor(Nomura fig. 2: “210, 220”).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim 1, but could be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims for the following reasons: No prior art of record discloses the features as claimed in the noted claims.
7. Claims 11-18 are allowed.
8. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The non-obvious features are:
In comparison with the closest prior art as cited in this Office action and any previous Office actions, no prior art of record discloses the following features as claimed in the following claim limitations:
As per claim 2: A relay component coupled to a plurality of fault signal inputs and configured to: in response to a fault signal at one of the plurality of fault signal inputs, open the first switch and close the second switch; and after the set amount of time from receiving the fault signal, close the first switch and open the second switch.
As per independent claim 11: In response to the fault signal, shunting the driver circuit to stop the motor, including: decoupling the driver circuit for the motor from a voltage source; and coupling the driver circuit to an electrical ground via a resistor, wherein the driver circuit is decoupled from the electrical ground in accordance with charge draining from a capacitor.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 6,731,082 to Pelonis discloses a motor control system.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5251. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, Eduardo Colon-Santana can be reached at 571-272-2060. 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.
/DAVID LUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights