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 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-7, 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12233551 (hereinafter ‘551) in view of Hart et al (US 20140276933, hereinafter Hart).
Regarding Claims 1, 13, 14, ‘551 claims:
Each and every limitation as those of the present application except for:
wherein, in the first loop control system, the force control unit outputs a target torque of the driving unit, based on the error between the target tension of the wire and the tension of the wire (see at least " When a disturbance at distal end prevents the catheter tip from achieving the commanded angulation, that resistance of motion at the distal section will effectively change the spring rate of the catheter shaft and the equations will fail to predict the motion. In this example, the angulation is commanded by moving the control wire from position x.sub.1 to x.sub.2. As governed by the equation, this change in spring rate can be determined via knowledge of the tension in the control wires. Thus, tension or motor torque data can be used to determine adjustments to the motor commands to achieve the desired tension and adjusting motor commands based on real time tension data. This information can also be fed back into the controls software and can be presented to the user as haptic, visual or other feedback to relay the effect of the disturbance." in par. 0047)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system, robot, and method claimed by ‘551 to incorporate the teachings of Hart wherein the torque commands to the motors are adjusted to eliminate the difference between the current tension and the desired tension. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Hart would be to minimizes the tension error caused by influences like plastic creep, gear friction, or transmission backlash (see par. 0049-0050).
Note while ‘551 does not claim a method for implementing the claimed control system, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a method for implementing the control system of ‘551 Claim 1.
19022895 Claim Number
US 12233551 Claim Number
1
1
2
2
3
1
4
3
5
4
6
1
7
5
8
7
9
9
10
9
11
11
12
12
13
6
14
1
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: curvable unit, driving unit, position control unit, force control unit in claim(s) 1 (first instance) and kinematics calculation unit in Claim 2 (first instance).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim 6 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "the first coefficient".
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, making it unclear whether or not this refers to the same first coefficient introduced in Claim 3. For examining purposes, this element will be interpreted to be the first coefficient of Claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip et al (US 20170312920 et al, hereinafter Yip) in view of Hart et al (US 20140276933, hereinafter Hart).
Regarding Claim 1, Yip teaches:
a control system for controlling a continuum robot including (see at least "control system 200" in par. 0041)
at least a curvable unit driven by a wire (see at least " the controller may control a tendon-driven continuum manipulator. Tendon-driven continuum manipulators may be redundantly actuated in order to achieve bi-directional actuation." in par. 0053) and
a driving unit driving the wire and a wire holding mechanism (see at least "The manipulator 230 includes one or more actuators in a plant 240 (see, e.g., the plant illustrated and described with respect to FIG. 1B), one or more position sensors 250, and one or more force sensors 260." in par. 0043 ), the control system comprising:
a position control unit configured to perform control so that an error between a target displacement for a push-pull driving of the wire by the driving unit and a displacement of the wire holding mechanism is compensated; (see at least “The position sensor 250 provides position information to the closed-loop control 210, in terms of measured position x of the end-effector, and/or in terms of measured displacement Δx of the end-effector. (An optional position sensor 250 may provide position information of the actuator, in terms of a measured position y of the actuator, and/or in terms of a measured displacement Δy of the actuator.) Based on the measured position information provided by the position sensor 250, the closed-loop control 210 determines an error e.sub.x (as shown in FIG. 1B), and a new desired actuator movement Δy.” in par. 0045 and “Specifically for a tendon-driven manipulator, the controller should ensure that tendons maintain a positive tension so that they do not go slack. Thus, to maintain a constant positive tension, the constraint of equation (11) is included, where Δτ is from equation (7).” In par. 0062 )
a force control unit configured to perform control so that an error between a target tension of the wire and a tension of the wire is compensated (see at least “The force sensor 260 provides a measured force to the closed-loop control 210, to use in determining the next desired actuator movement Δy.” In par. 0045 and "Thus, for either of the following position/force control techniques, two objectives that are to be minimized are Δy.sub.x and Δτ, and the position equation (8) and tendon tension constraints in equation (11) are to be satisfied." in par. 0063 and “The continuum manipulator included an antagonistic tendon drive and an insertion actuator. Distal force sensing was achieved by a distal force sensor, and tendon tensions were measured using load cells.” In par. 0079)
a first loop control system including the force control unit (see at least "The control of forces using a proportional gain closed-loop controller is described as in equation (10), where F.sub.ref is the reference force, F is the measured force, and K.sub.F is the proportional gain." in par. 0061 and “One technique to describe force constraints is to approximate the continuum manipulator's backbone as a spring and to approximate the environment as having a certain stiffness, such that when the manipulator and environment come into contact with each other, they act as a series-elastic system. For the series-elastic system, when the manipulator is in contact with the environment, the difference between the manipulator's measured position x and its position x′ if it were not constrained represents the compression of the manipulator, which creates a spring force F.sub.m; similarly, the difference between x and the unconstrained contact location x.sub.0 of the environment is the environment stiffness F.sub.e. (See the pre-contact and in-contact spring representations in FIG. 4.) The spring force F.sub.m and environment stiffness F.sub.e are described in equations (12), where K.sub.m and K.sub.e are manipulator stiffness and environmental stiffness matrices, respectively, and each are non-negative and symmetric.” In par. 0064 and Fig. 4)
a second loop control system including the force control unit and the position control unit wherein, in the second loop control system, the position control unit outputs the target tension of the wire to the force control unit, based on the error between the target displacement and the displacement of the wire holding mechanism. (see at least "The closed-loop controller (e.g., as described with respect to FIG. 2) minimizes a combination of objectives given a number of physical constraints. The objectives and constraints that are not dependent on force control are described first, whereas those dependent on a specific technique of force control (whether through a stiffness or Jacobian-transpose technique) are described subsequently." in par. 0058 and “Thus, for either of the following position/force control techniques, two objectives that are to be minimized are Δy.sub.x and Δτ, and the position equation (8) and tendon tension constraints in equation (11) are to be satisfied.” In par. 0063). Note the continuum robot control system uses a force control loop corresponding to the first control loop system when it is in contact with the environment and position/force control loop corresponding to the second loop control system before contact is made.
Yip does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Hart does teach:
wherein, in the first loop control system, the force control unit outputs a target torque of the driving unit, based on the error between the target tension of the wire and the tension of the wire, and (see at least " When a disturbance at distal end prevents the catheter tip from achieving the commanded angulation, that resistance of motion at the distal section will effectively change the spring rate of the catheter shaft and the equations will fail to predict the motion. In this example, the angulation is commanded by moving the control wire from position x.sub.1 to x.sub.2. As governed by the equation, this change in spring rate can be determined via knowledge of the tension in the control wires. Thus, tension or motor torque data can be used to determine adjustments to the motor commands to achieve the desired tension and adjusting motor commands based on real time tension data. This information can also be fed back into the controls software and can be presented to the user as haptic, visual or other feedback to relay the effect of the disturbance." in par. 0047)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system taught by Yip to incorporate the teachings of Hart wherein the torque commands to the motors are adjusted to eliminate the difference between the current tension and the desired tension. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Hart would be to minimizes the tension error caused by influences like plastic creep, gear friction, or transmission backlash (see par. 0049-0050).
Regarding Claim 2, Yip as modified by Hart teaches:
the control system according to claim 1, further comprising
Yip does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Hart does teach:
a kinematics calculation unit calculating a kinematics calculation based on input of a target curving angle of the curvable unit to output the target displacement. (see at least " For a straight catheter, that length is equal to the articulating section, L.sub.o. As the catheter bends (where .alpha. is the angle from the neutral axis, r.sub.c is the radius of the catheter, and .tau. is the articulation angle), the path length is equal to L.sub.o-cos(.alpha./90)*r.sub.c*.tau.. The difference--(.alpha./90)*r.sub.c*.tau.--is the distance the pull-wire must be actuated to make a catheter articulate to an angle .tau., as illustrated in FIG. 3. From this concept, further solid mechanic and kinematic modeling is used via algorithms in the control computer to convert a desired catheter position or orientation as provided by the user into commands to the instrument driver to rotate motors designated for each pull-wire." in par. 0025)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system taught by Yip to incorporate the teachings of Hart wherein control system uses kinematic modeling to determine motor commands to achieve the user’s desired bending angle. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Hart would be to achieve more desirable dynamics (see par. 0041)
Regarding Claim 5, Yip as modified by Hart teaches:
5. The control system according to claim 1,
Yip further teaches: wherein the continuum robot includes a plurality of the wires on one of the curvable unit and a plurality of the driving units driving each of the plurality of the wires (see at least "The continuum manipulator included an antagonistic tendon drive" in par. 0079), and
wherein the first loop control system and the second loop control system are configured to correspond to each driving unit in the plurality of the driving units. (see at least “FIG. 5 illustrates an implementation of a tendon-driven continuum manipulator including a model-less position/force controller according to an embodiment of the present disclosure” in par. 0079).
Regarding Claim 7, Yip as modified by Hart teaches:
the control system according to claim 5,
Yips further teaches: wherein one of the plurality of the wires in the one of the curvable unit is fixed to a base unit on the continuum robot. (see at least all tendons extending to tension actuators at base of continuum robot in Fig. 5 and Fig. 3 ).
Regarding Claim 13, Yip as modified by Hart also teaches (references to Yip:
13. A continuum robot (see at least "continuum manipulator" in par. 0030) comprising:
a wire (see at least “in an embodiment, the controller may control a tendon-driven continuum manipulator. Tendon-driven continuum manipulators may be redundantly actuated in order to achieve bi-directional actuation. Co-activation of tendons results in pre-tensions along the tendons and the body of the manipulator, which is a quantity of interest that can be minimized.” in par. 0053 ) ;
at least a curvable unit configured to be curvable (see at least “a flexible backbone 510” in par. 0080) ; and
a driving unit driving the wire (see at least "The manipulator 230 includes one or more actuators in a plant 24" in par. 0043 ),
wherein the continuum robot includes a control system according to claim 1. (see Claim 1 analysis)
Regarding Claim 14, Yip as modified by Hart also teaches (references to Yip:
a method (see at least Claim 12) for
Implementing the control system of Claim 1 (see Claim 1 analysis for rejection of the system)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yip et al (US 20170f312920 et al, hereinafter Yip) in view of Hart et al (US 20140276933, hereinafter Hart) and Simaan et al (US 20140330432, hereinafter Simaan).
Regarding Claim 9, Yip as modified by Hart teaches:
9. The control system according to claim 1,
Yip does not appear to explicitly teach all of the following, but Simaan does teach:
wherein the force control unit includes a PID controller and a low-pass filter coupled in series. (see at least “the estimated augmented generalized force errors 709 are filtered by a low pass filter 711.” In par. 0147 and “The Jacobian matrix mapping configuration space velocities to joint velocities is applied to the determined equilibrium pose of the continuum robot (step 721) to determine joint positions, .sup.-q, for the equilibrium pose. An integral 723 is applied and the output provided to a Joint PID controller 725 that adjusts the position of the continuum robot segments to conform to the detected forces.” in par. 0148 and Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Yips and modified by Hart to incorporate the teachings of Simaan wherein the force control is implemented via a PID controller and LPF in series. The motivation to incorporate the teachings of Simaan would be to “reduce joint motion due to uncompensated errors.” (see par. 0147).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN M KATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2776. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. 8:00-6:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. 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.
/DYLAN M KATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights