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 is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 1/22/25, wherein:
Claims 27-46 are currently pending;
Claims 1-26 have been cancelled;
Claims 27-46 have been added.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 27, 37, 46 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-11, 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. (US 12,194,635). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims 27, 37, 46 of the copending and claims 1, 10-11, 17-18 of the US Patent (US 12,194,635) show e.g. provide one or more weights associated with a plurality of joint state estimates of the plurality of joints based on one or more weighting scheme parameters associated with the robotic manipulator; wherein the weights are provided to reduce vibrations at a control point; apply the one or more weights to the joint state estimates for the plurality of joints to generate a plurality of weighted joint state estimates; and control the plurality of joints based on the plurality of weighted joint state estimates.
Although claims 1, 10-11, 17-18 of US Patent No. (US 12,194,635) have additional features. However, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1, 10-11, 17-18 of the US Patent No. US 12,194,635 to arrive at the claims 27, 37, 46 of the copending because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 27-30, 32, 34-35, 37-40, 42, 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOURTASH ET AL (US 2014/0316431) from Applicant’s IDS filed on 7/29/25. Herein after HOURTASH.
As for claim 27, HOURTASH discloses a system comprising: a robotic manipulator including a plurality of joints :see at least figures 1A, 5A-5C}; and a processing unit including one or more processors {see at least figures 1B, 2-3}, the processing unit configured to:
provide one or more weights associated with a plurality of joint state estimates of the plurality of joints based on one or more weighting scheme parameters associated with the robotic manipulator; wherein the weights are provided to reduce vibrations at a control point; apply the one or more weights to the joint state estimates for the plurality of joints to generate a plurality of weighted joint state estimates;
{see at least abstract, figures 14, 16-17, pars. 0013-0014, 0049, 0083-0086 , 0096 which discloses determine weighted join velocities (interpreted to be weighted joint state estimated) using a weighting matrix in a join space (interpreted to be weighting scheme parameter).
For example, par. 0013 discloses “determining weighted joint velocities by calculating joint velocities within a null-perpendicular-space of a Jacobian matrix and adjusting the calculated joint velocities within a null-space of the Jacobian by applying a weighting within a joint space of the plurality of joints, the weighting corresponding to a desired movement for a first set of joints of the plurality of joints; par. 0072 discloses the reducing the vibration/collision}
Pars. 0049 discloses e.g., “the joint velocities are weighted in a joint space to emphasize motion of the joints anisotropically in a null-space direction, the weighting corresponding to a desired state or movement of a first set of joints, such that driving the joints according to the weighted joint velocities achieves the commanded movement while providing the desired movement of the first set of joints”
Par. 0096 discloses e.g., “determining weighted joint velocities using a weighting matrix that corresponds to a desired movement of a first set of joints in response to a manipulation command input by a user to move the end effector according to a desired end effector movement”;
control the plurality of joints based on the plurality of weighted joint state estimates
{see at least figures 16-17, pars. 0013, 0096 e.g. driving the joints according to the weighted joint velocities so as to effect the desired end effector movement and the desired movement of the first set of joints}.
As for claim 28, HOURTASH discloses, wherein the robotic manipulator is configured to control of motion of a tool connected to the robotic manipulator by pivoting the tool about the control point {see at least figure 6C, pars. 0010, 0049, 0064}
As for claim 29, HOURTASH discloses wherein the control point includes a tool tip or a remote center {see at least figure 6C, pars. 0049, 0088}.
As for claim 30, HOURTASH discloses wherein a first weight of the one or more weights is determined based on a first distance between a first joint of the plurality of joints and the control point {see at least par. 0020, 0049}.
As for claims 32, 34, HOURTASH discloses wherein a first weight of the one or more weights is determined based on a first joint inertia of a first joint of the plurality of joints, wherein the first joint inertia includes a total inertia of the robotic manipulator distal to the first joint, or wherein the first joint inertia includes reflected motor inertia associated with the first joint. {see at least figure 5A, pars. 0013-0014, 0049, 0083}
As for claim 35, HOURTASH discloses wherein a first weight of the one or more weights is determined based on a first physical compliance of a first joint of the plurality of joints {see at least pars. 0013-0014, 0049}.
As for claims 37-40, 42, 44, 45 and 46, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
Claims 31, 33, 36, 41, 43 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Malackowski et al (US 2015/0374446): System and method for controlling a surgical manipulator based on implant parameters.
Diolaiti (US 12,446,977): Secondary instrument control in a computer assisted teleoperated system.
Dariush (US 2005/0209536): System and method of estimating joint loads using an approach of closed form dynamics.
Kamikawa (US 11,229,498): Medical support arm apparatus, medical system, and surgical microscope system.
Cooper (US 2007/0156122): a linkage and a balancing mechanism coupled to the linkage around a pivotal joint. The linkage couples to a support structure at a first end and support a weight applied to a second end.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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 on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656