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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 11-13, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Lohmeier (US20150105799) in view of Berkowitz (US10434643).
Regarding claim 1, Lohmeier teaches tool driver for use in robotic surgery ([0128]-[0132] disclosing a surgical tool driver to be used in robotic surgery), comprising:
a tool carriage configured to receive a surgical tool, wherein the tool carriage comprises:
at least one motor drive for actuating one or more articulated movements of the surgical tool ([0136]-[0137] disclosing connecting at least one surgical instrument to the drive via shaft and connector. At least [0157] disclosing the sheath movement “articulated” via the motor); and
a magnetic sensor configured to detect an angular orientation
for tracking a position of the surgical tool or the tool carriage ([0208]-[0209] disclosing determining the angle sensor to detect position of the surgical instrument and the end effector. At least [0094]- [0095] disclosing the angle sensor is a multi turn absolute detector and is magnetic).
Lohmeier does not teach experienced by the motor drive.
Berkowitz teaches the angular orientation experienced by the motor drive (col 17 lines 30-45 disclosing the rotational position encoder of a linear drive system that detects the rotational position of the gear which is used to determine a position and orientation of robotic devices such as fingers).
The combination/substitution of the encoder detecting the angular orientation of the motor drive with the encoder of Lohmeier obvious yielding predictable results as an obvious design choice of motors and gears which facilitate the control and precise positioning of robotic tools and avoiding damage of robotic components (Berkowitz col 17).
Regarding claim 2, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz teaches the tool driver of claim 1 wherein the magnetic sensor is an absolute multi-turn encoder (Lohmeier [0094]-[0095] disclosing the magnetic sensor is an absolute multi-turn encoder).
Regarding claim 3, Lohmeier as modified by Nerkowitz further teaches the tool driver of claim 1, wherein the motor drive is a linear axis drive and the magnetic sensor detects an angular orientation of at least one gear in the linear axis drive to determine a linear position of the surgical tool coupled to the tool carriage.
Specifically, Berkowitz teaches wherein the motor drive is a linear axis drive and the magnetic sensor detects an angular orientation of at least one gear in the linear axis drive to determine a linear position of the surgical tool coupled to the tool carriage (col 17 lines 30-45 disclosing the rotational position encoder of a linear drive system that detects the rotational position of the gear which is used to determine a position and orientation of robotic devices such as fingers).
The combination/substitution of the motor drive being a linear axis drive and the sensor detecting an orientation rotation of the drive is with the tool of Lohmeier obvious yielding predictable results as an obvious design choice of motors and gears which facilitate the control and precise positioning of robotic tools and avoiding damage of robotic components (Berkowitz col 17).
Regarding claim 7, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz teaches the tool driver of claim 1, further teaches wherein the magnetic sensor is further configured to detect a rotational position of an output of the motor drive to determine a linear position of the surgical tool coupled to the tool carriage.
Berkowitz teaches wherein the magnetic sensor is further configured to detect a rotational position of an output of the motor drive to determine a linear position of the surgical tool coupled to the tool carriage (col 17 lines 30-45 disclosing the rotational position encoder of a linear drive system that detects the rotational position of the gear which is used to determine a position and orientation of robotic devices such as fingers).
The combination/substitution of the detecting position of the motor drive to determine linear position of robotic parts with the surgical tool of Lohmeier obvious yielding predictable results as an obvious design choice of motors and gears which facilitate the control and precise positioning of robotic tools and avoiding damage of robotic components (Berkowitz col 17).
Regarding claim 9, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz teaches the tool driver of claim 1 wherein the motor drive is coupled to an input driving mechanism of the surgical tool and the magnetic sensor tracks a position of the surgical tool (Lohmeier [0061]-[0157] disclosing the connection of the shafts mechanism and the coupling to drive the position of the end effector. [0208]-[0209] disclosing tracking the position of the end effector via the sensors).
Claims 11-13, 17, 19 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, respectively, see above rejection.
Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Lohmeier (US20150105799) in view of Berkowitz (US10434643) and Tanaka (US20140060223) and Nomerange (US5780751)
Regarding claim 4, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz teaches the tool driver of claim 3, wherein the magnetic sensor comprises a magnet and a Hall effect sensor operable to detect a relative angular orientation of at least two gears in the linear axis drive.
Berkowitz teaches wherein the magnetic sensor (col 13- col 14 line 30 disclosing the encoder as a magnetic sensor, col 17 line 30-45 disclosing the detection of the angle of the gear 314 which is a relative position of the gear).
The combination/substitution of the motor drive being a linear axis drive and the sensor detecting an orientation rotation of the drive is with the tool of Lohmeier obvious yielding predictable results as an obvious design choice of motors and gears which facilitate the control and precise positioning of robotic tools and avoiding damage of robotic components (Berkowitz col 17).
Tanaka teaches comprises a magnet and a hall effect sensor ([0085]-[0086] disclosing a magnet and a hall sensor to detect motor rotation position). Berkowitz and Lohmeier both teach a magnetic encoder to determine positions in a robotic system, thus the combination substitution of the specific magnetic sensor including a magnet and a Hall sensor is obvious yielding predictable results in order to determine positions of the motor for robotic control and as an obvious design choice of magnetic encoders.
While Berkowitz does not teach the relative angular orientation of at least two gears.
Nomerange teaches relative angular orientation of at least two gears (abstract and claim 1, col. 1 and col 2 disclosing a first and second encoder being placed on the wheel “gear” and a member of the reduction gear “gear” to determine relative angular offset between gears).
Berkowitz teaches at least two gears, Tanaka teaches the magnetic hall sensor encoders, thus the combination of multiple encoders of Nomerange with the gears of Berkowitz and Tanaka is obvious yielding predictable results in order to determine a rotation of the other gear, confirm the rotation result, determine a displacement to determine a reaction torque. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4, see above rejection.
Claims 5-6, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Lohmeier (US20150105799) in view of Berkowitz (US10434643) and Nomerange (US5780751).
Regarding claim 5, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz teaches the tool driver of claim 3 wherein the linear axis drive comprises a first gear and a second gear, and the magnetic sensor comprises a first sensor for detecting an angular orientation of the first gear and a second sensor for detecting an angular orientation of the second gear. Berkowitz teaches the linear axis drive (col. 17),
Nomerange teaches comprises a first gear and a second gear, and the magnetic sensor comprises a first sensor for detecting an angular orientation of the first gear and a second sensor for detecting an angular orientation of the second gear (abstract and claim 1, col. 1 and col 2 disclosing a first and second encoder being placed on the wheel “gear” and a member of the reduction gear “gear” to determine relative angular offset between gears).
Berkowitz teaches at least two gears, Tanaka teaches the magnetic hall sensor encoders, thus the combination of multiple encoders of Nomerange with the gears of Berkowitz and Tanaka is obvious yielding predictable results in order to determine a rotation of the other gear, confirm the rotation result, determine a displacement to determine a reaction torque. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
Regarding claim 6, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz and Nomerange teaches the tool driver of claim 5 wherein the first gear and the second gear have different gear ratios (Nomerange Figure 1 and col.1-2 disclosing a different gear ratio which is a design of a reduction gear system).
It is obvious to combine the teaching of Nomerange of different gear ratio as a design choice.
Claims 15-16 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 5-6 respectively, see above rejection.
Claims 8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Lohmeier (US20150105799) in view of Berkowitz (US10434643) and Tanaka (US20140060223).
Regarding claim 8, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz teaches the tool driver of claim 1, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz does not teach wherein the magnetic sensor is contained on a printed circuit board mounted near a rotational component of the motor drive having the angular orientation detected by the magnetic sensor.
Tanaka teaches wherein the magnetic sensor is contained on a printed circuit board mounted near a rotational component of the motor drive having the angular orientation detected by the magnetic sensor. ([0085]-[0086] disclosing a magnet and a hall sensor to detect motor rotation position being installed on a circuit board near the rotational component of the motor). Berkowitz and Lohmeier both teach a magnetic encoder to determine positions in a robotic system, thus the combination substitution of the specific magnetic sensor including a magnet and a Hall sensor is obvious yielding predictable results in order to determine positions of the motor for robotic control and as an obvious design choice of magnetic encoders.
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8, see above rejection.
Claims 10, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Lohmeier (US20150105799) in view of Berkowitz (US10434643) and Crawford (US20160256225).
Regarding claim 10, Lohmeier as modified by Berkowitz teaches tool driver of claim 1 wherein the motor drive is coupled to an input driving mechanism of the tool carriage ([0061]-[0064] disclosing the actuation of the coupling mechanism).
While Lohmeier does not teach the magnetic sensor tracks a position of the tool carriage.
Crawford teaches the magnetic sensor tracks positions ([0106] disclosing the encoders positions are used to track positions of all parts of the robot).
Thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Crawford with magnetic encoders of Lohmeier and Berkowitz to determine a position of the tool carriage yielding predictable results in order to accurately control all parts of the robot and avoid any damage or collisions.
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10, see above rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20160314710 disclosing encoders to determine positions of effectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B