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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/961,863 filled on 11/27/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, 13, 15, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a first plurality of actuators coupled to drive motion” should apparently be “… actuators [[coupled]]configured to [[drive]]perform motion”. Claims 6, 13 ,15, 18 and 19 are also objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 1 cites that control unit comprises one or more processor, and in specification, filed on 11/27/2024, Para. [0023], cites “Operation of control unit 130 is controlled by processor 140”. Therefore, the control unit is construed as a hardware to perform corresponding functions in claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15-17 and 20. Therefore, the element “control unit” in claims 1, 3, 5-13, 15-17 and 20 doesn’t invoke 35 U.S,C 112(f) claim interpretation.
No priority was given for the claimed feature of “plurality of actuators to drive motion of the first articulated arm” as the feature is not discloses in prior filing parent cases.
The claim feature “receiving information” of first table motion of a table” is not given priority date of application number 16/726,675 (effective filing 12/24/2019) as the feature is not discloses in application number 16/726,675, but the effective filing date of application 17/133,890 (effective filing 12/24/2020) is given as a priority date of the instant application.
The claimed feature “the first table motion causing a corresponding first arm motion, the first arm motion being of at least a portion of the first articulated arm” is not given claim priority of earlier parent cases as the feature is not discloses in prior filing parent cases.
The claimed feature “control, using the first plurality of actuators, movement of the first articulated arm based on the first angular relationship” is not given priority of earlier parent cases filing date as the feature is not discloses in prior filing parent cases.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first plurality of actuators” must be shown in the drawing or the feature(s) to be canceled from the claim(s). Furthermore, claim cite more than one processor, where the drawing, Fig. 1 cites only one processor. Therefore, the “more processor” must be shown in the drawing or the feature(s) to be canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 13 and 18 cites the limitation that “the first table motion causing a corresponding first arm motion”, where it is not clear how the table motion casing robot’s arm motion. Therefore the claims are indefinite. For continuing examination the examiner interpret the claimed limitation as move position of the first according to a movement of the first table.
Claims 2-12, 14-17 and 19-20 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), drawing and claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art, Menzies et al. (US 2020/0107897A1) teaches a teleoperated device (See Fig. 1, Para. [0036], “surgical robot”, and surgeon console operated remotely to control state of surgical robot’s arms) comprising:
a first articulated arm comprising a first plurality of joints (See Fig. 1, Para. [0036], discloses “articulated arms with joints”), a first plurality of links coupled by the first plurality of joints (See Fig. 1, Para. [0036], discloses “joints between two links of the articulated arm”), and a first plurality of actuators coupled to drive motion of the first articulated arm (See Para. [0036], discloses “actuators which can drive motion of the arms at their joints”); and
a control unit comprising one or more hardware processors (See Fig. 1, Para. [0037], [0044], discloses “control unit 12 comprising a processor 12”), the control unit operatively coupled to the first articulated arm (See Para. [0037], Fig. 1, “the control unit 12 is coupled to robot arm to control joint drives);
wherein the control unit is configured to:
the table comprising one or more links and one or more joints coupling a base of the table to a top of the table (See Fig. 1, “operating table 17 with top and base are coupling together),
receive information of the first arm motion (See Para. [0045], “The control unit interprets that information and determines a corresponding target pose for the respective robot arm, or a target position for the end effector of the arm. The control unit determines which movements of which joints of the arm are required to achieve that position or pose, and then transmits signals over data link 10 or 11 to cause the joint drives of the appropriate arm to move the arm into the appropriate configuration to achieve that pose or position”),
Nevertheless, Menzies fails to teach, receive information of a first table motion of a table, the first table motion causing a corresponding first arm motion, the first arm motion being of at least a portion of the first articulated arm, the first table motion indicating a movement of the top of the table,
determine a first angular relationship between the table and the first articulated arm based on the first table motion and the first arm motion, and
control, using the first plurality of actuators, movement of the first articulated arm based on the first angular relationship.
However, another closest prior art, ITKOWITZ BRANDON D (WO2015/142943, English Equivalent US publication US2017/0181806 is used for claim mapping) teaches, receive information of a first table motion of a table (See Para. [0019], “receiving position, motion, and/or other sensor information from device 110, exchanging 30 position, motion, and/or collision avoidance information with other control units regarding other devices, such as a surgical table and/or imaging device, and/or planning and/or assisting in the planning of motion for device 110, articulated arms 120, and/or the end effectors of device 110”), the first table motion causing a corresponding first arm motion (See Para. [0055], “motion of the articulated structure in the surgical table (i.e., table movement) or movement of the patient relative to the surgical table, and the articulated arm and the tool move with the patient so that the pose of the tool relative to the patient does not change”, same as claimed), the first arm motion being of at least a portion of the first articulated arm (See Para. [0058], “motion of the articulated arm”),
Another prior art, Daley (US 2012/0198621 A1) teaches, the first table motion indicating a movement of the top of the table (See para. [0010], “a table top for supporting a patient thereon, the table top being moveable with respect to the base assembly”)
Another prior art, Stefanchik et al. (US 2013/0085510, this reference is from IDS) disclose, receive information of a first table motion of a table, the first table motion causing a corresponding first arm motion, the first arm motion being of at least a portion of the first articulated arm (See Para. [0033], “sensors configured to detect motion, position, or angles can be mounted to the surgical arms 110 or the joints thereof to provide sensor data which can be processed by the controller 106 to calculate a position and orientation of the platform 118 [i.e., table] and/or end effectors 116”),
Nevertheless the cited references above fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “determine a first angular relationship between the table and the first articulated arm based on the first table motion and the first arm motion, and control, using the first plurality of actuators, movement of the first articulated arm based on the first angular relationship”, and in combinations with all other limitations of claim 1. Claims 2-12 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claim 1; therefore, these claims would be also allowable by virtue of dependencies.
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to the device claim 1 and having the same allowable subject matter as discussed above for claim. Therefore, the claim 13 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Claims 14-17 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claim 13; therefore, these claims would be also allowable by virtue of dependencies.
Claim 18 is a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim corresponding to the device claim 1 and having the same allowable subject matter as discussed above for claim 1. Therefore, the claim 18 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1. Claims 19-20 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claim 18; therefore, these claims would be also allowable by virtue of dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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 M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657