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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority application No. GB2211906.9 filed on 08/15/2022
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 5-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5-6, it is unclear and indistinct what is meant by “positive configuration error limit” and “negative configuration error limit”. It is unclear if this is meant to refer to the previously recited configuration error limit, an additional limit, or something else.
No art has been developed for these claims because improper speculation as to the scope and meaning of the claims would be required by the examiner. See In re Steele 134 USPQ 292.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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) 1-4 and 7- 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williamson et al. (US 9079305).
Regarding claim 1:
Williamson teaches a controller (see at least robot controller 412) for controlling the configuration of a joint in a surgical robot (the Examiner notes that the preceding phrase is intended use language, and since the controller is capable of controlling a robot for any purpose, the limitation is met), the joint being driven by a drivetrain which transfers power from a drive source to the joint (series elastic actuator joint, see at least Fig. 2, motor 202, gearbox 204, elastic element 206, etc.), the controller being configured to:
receive a drive source configuration signal indicating a configuration of the drive source (see at least column 5, lines 48-67);
receive a joint configuration signal indicating a configuration of the joint (see at least column 5, lines 48-67, column 12, line 15-31);
determine a configuration error from a difference in configurations indicated by the drive source configuration signal and the joint configuration signal (see at least column 8 line 22-67);
determine a configuration error limit from a measured joint torque of the joint and a joint stiffness of the joint (see at least column 8, line 35-45);
compare the determined configuration error and the determined configuration error limit (see at least column 8, line 57-column 9, line 8); and
output a fault signal where the determined configuration error equals or exceeds the determined configuration error limit (see at least column 12, line 33-column 13, line 67).
Regarding claim 2:
Williamson further teaches the configuration error limit is joint-specific; and/or
the joint stiffness is joint-specific (see at least Fig. 2, column 6).
Regarding claim 3:
Williamson further teaches in which the joint stiffness of the joint comprises a minimum joint stiffness for that joint, and optionally in which the minimum joint stiffness is predetermined (see at least Fig. 2, column 6).
Regarding claim 4:
Williamson further teaches the joint configuration signal is received from an output position sensor, and/or
the drive source configuration signal is received from an input position sensor (see at least column 12, line 15-31).
Regarding claim 7:
Williamson further teaches in which:
the measured joint torque of the joint is a raw torque applied at the joint; and/or
the drive source is a motor (see at least Fig. 2, motor 202, column 3, lines 28-57, column 11, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 8:
Williamson further teaches in which:
the output position sensor is located at, or at a position proximal to, a distal end of the drive train at which the joint is located; and/or
the input position sensor is located at, or at a position proximal to, a proximal end of the drive train at which the drive source is located (see at least Fig. 2, 210, 216, column 6, lines 18-46).
Regarding claim 9:
Williamson further teaches wherein the controller is configured to compare the measured joint torque of the joint with a torque threshold, and to output an additional signal where the measured joint torque equals or exceeds the torque threshold (see at least column 6, line 61- column 7, line 20, column 9, line 10-column 10, line 42).
Regarding claim 11 :
Williamson teaches a method for controlling a robot as in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12:
Williamson further teaches outputting a further fault signal where the determined configuration error equals or exceeds a predetermined further configuration error limit (see at least column 3, line 56- column 4 line 5).
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 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 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.
Claims 10 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williamson.
Regarding claims 10 and 13-14:
Williamson teaches a control system as in claim 1 above.
Williamson further teaches compare the determined configuration error with a predetermined further configuration error limit, and output a further fault signal where the determined configuration error equals or exceeds the predetermined further configuration error limit (see at least column 3, line 50-column 4 line 5, column 13, line 18-67).
Williamson further teaches a plurality of controllers, including robot controllers, joint-level controllers, external controllers, etc. Williamson does not explicitly teach a second controller performing the above function separately from the first controller as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the robot monitoring system and method as taught by Williamson by implementing any of the functions utilizing any of the disclosed controllers as a matter of design choice in order to utilize an available, efficient, more powerful, idle controller or any other design consideration.
Regarding claim 15:
Williamson teaches the limitations as in claim 13 above.
Williamson further teaches a plurality of thresholds set as desired (see at least column 3 line 50-column 4 line 47)
Williamson does not explicitly teach the threshold relationships as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the robotic control system and method as taught by Williamson, including a plurality of threshold limits set at various values by including any particular threshold(s) as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 16:
Williamson further teaches configured to cause a first response to the first fault signal and to cause a different second response to the second fault signal;
and optionally in which the first response has a lesser impact on the functioning of the control system than the second response (see at least column 4 line 1-5).
Regarding claim 17:
Williamson further teaches in which:
the control system can restore full control of the surgical robot more quickly following the first response than following the second response; and / or
the control system can restore full control of the surgical robot in fewer steps following the first response than following the second response (see at least safe shut down vs temporary halt vs recalibration, column 4 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 18:
Williamson further teaches in which the first response comprises one or more of:
warning an operator of the surgical robot that the determined first configuration error limit has been reached or exceeded;
disabling operative control of the joint, and requiring a command to re-enable operative control of the joint (column 4 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 19:
Williamson further teaches in which the second response comprises:
disabling operative control of the joint, and requiring a setup procedure to re-enable operative control of the joint (column 4 lines 1-5).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights