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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11246669 B2, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11779415 B2, and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12390290 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims read on the application claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll (US 78645266 B2) in view of Snell (US 5590034).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, Moll discloses a computer-assisted device comprising: a first repositionable arm, the first repositionable arm configured to support a first end effector (eg. Fig. 4, one of the arm assemblies 310, Col. 3, Ln. 50-65, Col. 12, Ln. 10-25); a second repositionable arm, the second repositionable arm configured to support a second end effector (eg. Fig. 4, Col. 3, Ln. 50-65, Col. 38, Ln. 55 – Col. 39, Ln. 12); and a control unit communicably coupled to the first repositionable arm and the second repositionable arm (eg. Col. 3, Ln. 50 – Col. 5, Ln. 5), wherein the control unit is configured to: monitor an actual motion of at least one structure selected from the group consisting of the first repositionable arm and the first end effector (eg. Col. 20 Ln. 45 – Col. 22, Ln. 45); determine a composite deviation between a plurality of kinematic or dynamic values of the actual motion and the plurality of kinematic or dynamic values of a desired motion of the at least one structure (eg. Col. 20 Ln. 45 – Col. 21, Ln. 67); determine whether the composite deviation is greater than a deviation threshold; and in response to the composite deviation being greater than the deviation threshold: halt motion of the first repositionable arm or the second repositionable arm (eg. Col. 5, Ln. 29-47, Col. 17, Ln. 50-65, Col. 22. Ln. 10-30). Moll does not disclose a composite deviation aggregating a plurality of kinematic/dynamic values against a threshold.
Snell teaches a surgical robot that crate s a composite root sum f squares of six position orientation errors to compare to a tolerance threshold (Eg. Col. 3, Ln. 55 – Col. 5, Ln. 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Moll with the RSS metric tolerance comparison as taught by Snell because aggregating errors into one scalar value is well-known in the art and predictable way to evaluate overall pose error with signal decision thresholds.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses an input device; wherein the control unit is further configured to receive a command from the input device, the command indicating the desired motion of the at least one structure (eg. Moll, Abstract, Col. 5, Ln. 5-16, Col. 10, Ln. 54 – Col. 11, Ln. 5, Col. 12, Ln. 1 – Col. 13, Ln. 10).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses to determine the composite deviation, the control unit is configured to compute a root-mean-square error between the plurality of kinematic or dynamic values of the actual motion and the plurality of kinematic or dynamic values of the desired motion (Eg. Snell, Col. 3, Ln. 55 – Col. 5, Ln. 62).
Regarding claim 4, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses each of the plurality of kinematic or dynamic values is weighted when determining the composite deviation (eg. Snell, Col. 3, Ln. 55 – Col. 5, Ln. 62).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses a weight assigned to a position of a repositionable element of the at least one structure is higher than a weight assigned to an orientation of the repositionable element (eg. Snell, Col. 3, Ln. 55 – Col. 5, Ln. 62).
Regarding claim 9, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses wherein to halt the motion of the first repositionable arm and the first end effector, the control unit is configured to: lock a commanded position of an actuated repositionable element of the at least one structure to a current commanded position of the actuated repositionable element and set a commanded velocity of the actuated repositionable element to zero; or brake the actuated repositionable element and set a feedback torque for the actuated repositionable element to zero (eg. Moll, Col. 17, Ln. 30-51, Col. 27, Ln. 5-40, Col. 32, Ln. 34-43, Col. 35, Ln. 30-65, Col. 37, Ln. 24-41).
Regarding claim 10, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses wherein the desired motion of the at least one structure is no motion of the at least one structure (eg. Moll, Col. 17, Ln. 30-51, Col. 27, Ln. 5-40, Col. 32, Ln. 34-43, Col. 35, Ln. 30-65, Col. 37, Ln. 24-41).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to clear a condition causing halting of the motion; and to clear the condition, the control unit is configured to set a commanded position of a commanded element of the at least one structure to a current position of the commanded element (eg. Moll, Col. 17, Ln. 30-51, Col. 27, Ln. 5-40, Col. 32, Ln. 34-43, Col. 35, Ln. 30-65, Col. 37, Ln. 24-41).
Regarding claim 12, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses wherein the control unit is further configured to: select whether to halt motion of the first repositionable arm and the first end effector or to halt motion of the second repositionable arm and the second end effector based on at least one mode of operation selected from the group consisting of: a mode of operation of the first repositionable arm, a mode of operation of the first end effector, a mode of operation of the second repositionable arm, and a mode of operation of the second end effector (eg. Moll, Col. 5, Ln. 29-47, Col. 17, Ln. 50-65, Col. 22. Ln. 10-30, Col. 37, Ln. 24-37).
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moll (US 78645266 B2) in view of Snell (US 5590034), further in view of Zhu (US 9165199 B2).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combined invention of Moll and Snell discloses the invention of claim 4, but does not disclose the at least one structure comprises a first repositionable element and a second repositionable element; the first repositionable element is located more proximally than the second repositionable element in a kinematic chain of the at least one structure; and kinematic or dynamic values associated with the first repositionable element have a higher weight than kinematic or dynamic values associated with the second repositionable element.
Zhu teaches weighting features of a kinematic chain via a weighting matrix assigning differing weights to different degrees of freedom (eg. Col. 17, Ln. 13 – Col. 19, Ln. 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the invention of Moll and Snell with the weighting matrix as taught by Zhu since one of ordinary skill would weigh more proximal joints over more distal joints because a proximal joint error would produce larger Cartesian tool displacement per unit joint error and would provide the predictable result of selecting sensitivity for different parts of the kinematic chain.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-2317. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/MICHAEL J LAU/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights