DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 03/31/2024. Claims 1-19 are pending and examined below.
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
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims are numbered using repeated numbers for example there are two claim 1 and two claim 2. Claims needed to numbered properly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1-19 is/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 claim 1 (and similarly claim 18 and 19), which recites “first reference information collection apparatus” and “second reference information collection apparatus” is not clear. It is not clear what is referred by information collection apparatus. It is a camera? Or something else? [0020] of PGPub of submitted specification describe “the first reference information collection apparatus is a first reference object capturing apparatus that acquires a first reference image for the reference object, and the second reference information collection apparatus is a second reference object capturing apparatus that captures a second reference image for the reference object.”
Dependent claim(s) 2-17 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent (claim 1’s) deficiencies.
Regarding claim 1 (repeat), which is dependent on claim 2. However, there are two different claim 2. It is not clear claim 1(repeat) is dependent on which claim 2.
Regarding claim 2 (repeat), which is dependent on claim 3. However, there is no claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4. However, there is no claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “direct a ceiling” is not clear. It is not clear whether information collection apparatuses are collecting information of a ceiling or a camera on the ceiling is directed or something else.
Regarding claim 13, which recites parameters for relation matrix, e.g., E11, E12, E13, E21, E22, E23, E31, E32, E33. The claim does not specify what those parameters are. It is clear whether those are positions? Or coordinates? Or something else?
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) 1, 2, 7, 8, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2016/0346930 (“Hares”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 18 and 19), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Hares discloses a method for driving a surgical robot system comprising a first robot and a second robot, which are performed by a computing device (see at least fig 1), the method comprising:
acquiring first reference information for a reference object from a first reference information collection apparatus included in the first robot (see at least [0009], where “contacting the datum carried by the arm with a first datum on an object in the environment of the robot; calculating in dependence on the outputs of the position sensors a distance between a reference location defined in a frame of reference local to the robot and the first object datum”; see also [0048], where reference location (table) is interpreted as reference object and reference information is interpreted as distance/location of robot from the table);
acquiring second reference information for the reference object from a second reference information collection apparatus included in the second robot (see at least [0010], where “calculating in dependence on the outputs of the position sensors when the datum carried by the arm is contacted with the first object datum and with the second object datum an orientation of the object relative to a reference direction defined in a frame of reference local to the robot”; see also [0052], where “sufficient information can be gathered to fully characterise the locations and orientations of the two robots and the table if (a) the robots are each touched to a different datum point on the table and (b) the robots are be touched together in two different relative positions.”; both robots are touching the table. Table is interpreted as reference object. see also [0011] and [0049]); and
determining relative position relationship between the first robot and the second robot, based on the first reference information and the second reference information (see at least [0092], where “calculate the relative positions and orientations of the first and second robots 10 and 11, both the first and second robot arms are manipulated so that both the first and second datums 70 and 79 mate with respective sockets of the common datum 111 concurrently, or simultaneously.”; see also [0101] and [0117]).
Regarding claim 2, Hares further discloses a method wherein the first robot mounts a first surgical instrument, and the second robot mounts a second surgical instrument (see at least [0057] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Hares further discloses method wherein at least one of the first reference information collection apparatus and the second reference information collection apparatus is positioned in at least one of a body unit of the first robot and a body unit of the second robot (see at least fig 2, where sensors (26, 46) are attached with the robot).
Regarding claim 8, Hares further discloses method wherein: at least one of the first robot and the second robot comprises a passive arm unit connected to a body unit, and comprises an active arm unit connected to the passive arm unit (see at least fig 2, where 23, 43 are passive arm unit connecting with body, 21 and 41); and
at least one of the first reference information collection apparatus and the second reference information collection apparatus is positioned in an active arm unit connection unit of the passive arm unit (see at least 2, where sensors are positioned on the active arm unit).
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 (repeat), 2 (repeat) and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0346930 (“Hares”), and further in view of US 2023/0270511 (“Junio”).
Regarding claim 1 (repeat), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Hares does not discloses claim 1 (repeat). However, Junio discloses method wherein the determining comprises: determining coordinate system transformation information between a first robot base coordinate system and a second robot base coordinate system (see at least [0004], where “determining, based on the image information and the sensor information, a correlation among a patient coordinate system, a first coordinate system of the first robot, and a second coordinate system of the second robot; and controlling movement of the first robot and the second robot within a common work volume based on the correlation.”; correlation among first coordinate system and second coordinate system is interpreted as coordinate system transformation information).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hares to incorporate the teachings of Junio by including the above feature for calculating complex spatial movements, align sensor data, and execute precise, real-time trajectory adjustments.
Regarding claim 2 (repeat), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Hares further discloses a method wherein: the second surgical instrument comprises a surgical camera (see at least [0052], where “One of the robots could be equipped with a camera.”; see also [0041]); and the method further comprises:
performing transformation between user input interface manipulation information based on a coordinate system of a user input interface of the surgical robot system and driving information of the first surgical instrument based on a coordinate system of the first surgical instrument based on kinematics information of the first robot, kinematics information of the second robot, (see at least [0087], where “The distance between the robots can also be calculated. As described above, that orientation may be calculated with respect to a reference direction defined in a coordinate system, or reference frame, local to one of the robots. Alternatively, the reference direction may be defined in a coordinate system, or reference frame”; see also [0048]); and
operating the first surgical instrument based on the driving information (see at least [0048]).
Hares does not disclose the coordinate system transformation information. However, Junio further discloses a method wherein the coordinate system transformation information is used for robot control, see at least [0015]. Similar motivation of claim 1 (repeat) applies.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Hares further discloses a method wherein the coordinate system of the user input interface corresponds to a coordinate system of a surgical image, which is acquired by the surgical camera and displayed through a display of the surgical robot system (see at least [0041], where “In that way the surgeon can control the robots to manipulate instruments borne by the robot arms in order to perform surgery on a patient. The processor receives inputs from a control panel 65, which allows the operating state of the arm to be selected. One of the robots could carry a camera. Images captured by the camera could be transmitted to the control unit 60 and displayed on the display 63 to assist the surgeon.”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0346930 (“Hares”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0276058 (“Choi”).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Hares does not discloses claim 6. However, Choi discloses method wherein the first reference information collection apparatus and the second reference information collection apparatus are oriented to direct a ceiling of a surgical space in which the first robot and the second robot are disposed (see at least [0023] and [0036]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hares to incorporate the teachings of Choi by including the above feature for eliminating ground-level visual interference (like moving people or furniture).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0346930 (“Hares”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0277764 (“Cooper”).
Regarding claim 10, Hares does not discloses claim 10. However, Cooper discloses method wherein the relative position relationship between the first robot and the second robot is a relative azimuth having an axis perpendicular to a ground of a surgical space where the first robot and the second robot are positioned as a rotation axis (see at least [0043], [0062] and [0065]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hares to incorporate the teachings of Cooper by including the above feature for obstacle avoidance, and constantly adjusts its trajectory based on its immediate sensor inputs.
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0346930 (“Hares”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0117752 (“Ueno”).
Regarding claim 11, Hares further discloses a method wherein: the first reference information collection apparatus is a first reference object capturing apparatus that acquires a first reference image for the reference object (see at least [0056], where “One of the robots could be equipped with a camera. Video analysis of the output of the camera could be performed to identify the datums to which the arm is to be touched, and the arm could then be controlled automatically to bring a predetermined part of that arm into contact with the datums.”); and
the second reference information collection apparatus is a second reference object capturing apparatus that captures a second reference image for the reference object (see at least [0056]).
Hares does not disclose the following limitations:
extracting a plurality of first feature points from the first reference image and a plurality of second feature points from the second reference image; and
determining a relation matrix representing a relative position relationship between the first reference object capturing apparatus and the second reference object capturing apparatus based on information on the first feature points and information on the second feature points.
However, Ueno discloses a method wherein the determining comprises:
extracting a plurality of first feature points from the first reference image and a plurality of second feature points from the second reference image (see at least [0004], [0151], [0158] and [0170]); and
determining a relation matrix representing a relative position relationship between the first reference object capturing apparatus and the second reference object capturing apparatus based on information on the first feature points and information on the second feature points (see at least [0066] and [0094]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hares to incorporate the teachings of Ueno by including the above feature for obstacle avoidance, and constantly adjusts its trajectory based on its immediate sensor inputs.
Regarding claim 12, Ueno further discloses a method wherein: the information on the first feature points comprises coordinate information of the first feature points in the first reference image (see at least [0158]); and
the information on the second feature points comprises coordinate information of the second feature points in the second reference image (see at least [0170]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Ueno further discloses a method wherein transformation matrix is generated from coordinate system. Position of feature points of the reference object is generated via transformation matrix. See at least fig 5, fig 6, [0152] and [0158]. However, it is silent as to the specifics of applying mathematical formula for essential matrix.
Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving relative position relationship, as shown by Ueno. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In addition, because both Hares and Ueno are directed to relative positional information, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have substituted transformation matrix to achieve predictable result of essential matrix.
Regarding claim 14, Similar analysis of claim 13 applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Ueno further discloses a method wherein the determining comprises: extracting a rotation matrix representing a rotation relation between the first reference image and the second reference image from the relation matrix (see at least [0061] and [0064]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0346930 (“Hares”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2015/0117752 (“Ueno”), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2006/0155798 (“Ketchum”).
Regarding claim 16, Hares in view of Ueno does not disclose claim 16. However, Ketchum discloses a method wherein the extracting comprises: extracting the rotation matrix by performing singular value decomposition (SVD) for the relation matrix (see at least fig 2 and fig 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hares in view of Ueno to incorporate the teachings of Ketchum by including the above feature for managing redundant degrees of freedom, and achieving numerical stability in robotic control systems.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0346930 (“Hares”), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 2015/0117752 (“Ueno”), as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2012/0277764 (“Cooper”).
Regarding claim 17, Ueno further discloses a method wherein the determining comprises: determining a rotation angle according to the rotation matrix (see at least [0065]). Cooper further discloses a method wherein a relative azimuth between the first robot and the second robot having an axis perpendicular to the ground of a surgical space where the first robot and the second robot are positioned as a rotation axis (see at least [0043], [0062] and [0065]). Same motivation of claim 10 applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 is/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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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 at 5712703976. 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.
SOHANA TANJU KHAYER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657C
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights