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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2017/0172671 A1 hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 1 Miller discloses:
A robotic system, comprising: a robotic arm that interacts with an object during operation; (Miller [0019-0021] [0025] [0014] wherein the robot arms are used for surgical systems i.e. operations during medical or surgical treatments with an operator and on a patient) and a locking component that, during operation, locks a multi-position component in an operating position; (Miller [0020] [0023] wherein the robot includes a locking state such as a clutch state to prevent operation/movement of the arm and instruments) wherein responsive to a triggering event, locking of the multi-position component in the operating position is released and the multi-position component moves away from its operating position, (Miller [0023-0025] wherein when the system determines that the locked state is improper either through manual operation or sensed conditions like a collision, the system is triggered to allow for movement away from the current operating position) facilitating separation between the robotic arm and the object. (Miller [0023] wherein the joint actuator is no longer locked and permits movement away from the otherwise commanded position).
Regarding claim 2 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses:
The robotic system of claim 1, further comprising a damper that regulates a speed at which the multi-position component moves away from its operating position. (Miller [0035] wherein the robot arms are damped when moving in a manner away from the locked or commanded state).
Regarding claim 7 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses:
The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the multi-position component comprises at least one of a rotating joint, a prismatic joint, or a linkage-based component. (Miller [0019] wherein the arm includes rotational joints, prismatic joints, and linkage components).
Regarding claim 10 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses:
The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the multi-position component is coupled to the robotic arm. (Miller [0020] [0023] wherein the robotic arm including the instrument or end effector and various joints are all coupled to the arm).
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.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Nagamitsu et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2019/0151187 A1 hereinafter “Nagamitsu”).
Regarding claim 4 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Miller does not appear to further disclose:
… further comprising a spring that causes the multi-position component to move away from its operating position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Nagamitsu discloses:
“further comprising a spring that causes the multi-position component to move away from its operating position.” (Nagamitsu [0157] wherein the component is biased towards an origin position based on a spring component).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the spring biasing of Nagamitsu with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a means of maintaining contact of the effector with the patient, or providing a more realistic operation to mimic a user (Nagamitsu [0157] [0054-0055]).
Regarding claim 9 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Miller further discloses:
The robotic system of claim 1, wherein a holding force of the locking component is based on a force associated with applying … content. (Miller [0031] wherein the locking conditions are based on the force applied during operation on the arm).
Miller does not appear to explicitly disclose:
“… applying massage content”
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Nagamitsu discloses:
““… applying massage content” (Nagamitsu [0045] [0049] [0126-0127] wherein the robot is a massage robot with end effectors to provide treatment)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the massage use of Nagamitsu with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a specific use for the robot that provides comfort and improved treatment to a user (Nagamitsu [0049]).
Claims 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Liu et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2023/0166396 A1 hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding claim 8 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Miller does not appear to disclose:
…wherein the locking component comprises an electromagnet.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Liu discloses:
“wherein the locking component comprises an electromagnet.” (Liu [0110] [0197] wherein the robot system includes an electromagnetic contract brake to stop the arm from moving).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the electromagnetic lock of Liu with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a means for operating the robot safely with additional precautions, such as an automatic fail safe during power failure to brake the robot (Liu [0110]).
Regarding claim 17 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Miller does not appear to disclose:
…wherein the triggering event comprises a power outage event.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Liu discloses:
“wherein the triggering event comprises a power outage event.” (Liu [0110] wherein the locking electromagnetic brake apply under the detection of a power outage or power failure)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the electromagnetic lock of Liu with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a means for operating the robot safely with additional precautions, such as an automatic fail safe during power failure to brake the robot (Liu [0110]).
Regarding claim 18 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Miller does not appear to disclose:
… wherein a range of motion of the multi-position component is limited by an end stop.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Liu discloses:
“wherein a range of motion of the multi-position component is limited by an end stop.” (Liu [0161] wherein the robot includes limit pieces i.e. stops to prevent movement at the end of the movement range).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the physical stop of Liu with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a way to physically prevent unwanted motion of the robot during operation (Liu [0161-0163]).
Claims 11-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller as applied to claim 1 above further in view of Schmitt et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2023/0355456 A1 hereinafter “Schmitt”).
Regarding claim 11 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and Miller further discloses:
The robotic system of claim 10, wherein the robotic arm is coupled to a base plate, and wherein the multi-position component is coupled to the base plate. (Miller fig. 1 elements 110, 120 [0019] [0043] wherein the robot arms, joints, and instrument are coupled to the device such as a base or cart).
Additionally and as an alternative, should the applicant disagree with the characterization of the Miller reference, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Schmitt further discloses:
“…wherein the robotic arm is coupled to a base plate, and wherein the multi-position component is coupled to the base plate.” (Schmitt fig. 2 [0077] wherein the robot arms mounted at the based plate include pivoting joints to allow for rotation of the arm base).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the base of Schmitt with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a base location for the arms to mount near the patient, giving the arms better positioning relative to the patient (Schmitt [0077]).
Regarding claim 12 Miller in view of Schmitt discloses all of the limitations of claim 11 but Miller does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the multi-position component comprises a pivoting joint located at the base plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Schmitt discloses:
“wherein the multi-position component comprises a pivoting joint located at the base plate.” (Schmitt fig. 2 [0077] wherein the robot arms mounted at the based plate include pivoting joints to allow for rotation of the arm base, see also [0089] and fig. 6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the base of Schmitt with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a base location for the arms to mount near the patient, giving the arms better positioning relative to the patient (Schmitt [0077]).
Regarding claim 13 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Miller does not appear to disclose:
…wherein the multi-position component is coupled to a support structure that supports the object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Schmitt discloses:
“wherein the multi-position component is coupled to a support structure that supports the object.” (Schmitt [0088-0089] wherein the arms and positioning components are coupled to the table to support the object i.e. patient).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the support of Schmitt with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a base location for the arms to mount near the patient, giving the arms better positioning relative to the patient (Schmitt [0077]).
Regarding claim 15 Miller in view of Schmitt discloses all of the limitations of claim 13 but Miller does not appear to further disclose:
… wherein the support structure comprises a platform that supports the object.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Schmitt discloses:
“wherein the support structure comprises a platform that supports the object.” (Schmitt [0087] wherein the table support includes a platform for the object i.e. patient).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the support of Schmitt with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a base location for the arms to mount near the patient, giving the arms better positioning relative to the patient (Schmitt [0077]).
Regarding claim 16 Miller discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Miller does not appear to disclose:
… wherein the triggering event comprises user activation of an emergency stop.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Schmitt discloses:
“wherein the triggering event comprises user activation of an emergency stop.” (Schmitt [0172] wherein the system includes an e-stop to safely end operations of the system or otherwise direct the system to perform a desired operation).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the emergency stop of Schmitt with the robotic system of Miller with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a common element that immediately halts operation of the robotic system to improve the safety of the system and reduce risks of collision to the user or patient (Schmitt [0172] [0004-0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, and 14 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.
Regarding Claims 3, 5-6 and 14 the relevant art Miller, Liu, Nagamitsu, and Schmitt disclose a robotic arm interacting with an object such as a person during medical operations (Miller [0019-0021] [0014] [0025]) locking to prevent unwanted movements (Miller [0023] [0020]) and moving away from an object when unlocked and commanded to move in some manner (Miller [0023-0025] [0023]) but fails to disclose a time based damper rate, a spring force based on maximum user force, a countering force from the locking mechanism against a spring force, or moving a support structure away when a robotic arm is released. Specifically, the relevant art fails to disclose “wherein the damper is associated with a damper rate that is based at least in part on a specified amount of time to move the multi-position component away from its operating position” or “wherein a spring force exerted by the spring is specified based on a maximum permitted force from a user” or “wherein during operation, a holding force of the locking component counters a force of the spring that is directed to moving the multi-position component away from the operating position” or “wherein subsequent to release of the locking on the multi-position component, the support structure moves away from the robotic arm.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0165644 A1 discloses a surgical arm with power loss operation controls
US 2019/0176334 A1 discloses a robotic tableside mounted arm to assist in operation and surgeries
US 2017/0266077 A1 discloses a multi-armed robot massager with end effectors to operate on a user, limiting the massage based on user feedback or requests
US 2014/0276952 A1 discloses a robotic arm lock through locking or floating clutches
KR 20160114224 A discloses a backdriving robotic arm with power failure considerations and a release to permit backdriving
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights