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 04/29/2025, 09/26/2025, 12/26/2025, 06/11/2026.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 55, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ruiz (US20130012930 from IDS) in view of Wang (US20200341584) and Verner (US20140236177).
Regarding claim 55, Ruiz teaches a method of control for a surgical system, the surgical system including a manipulator unit, a controller, a user control unit, and a medical instrument supported by the manipulator unit and operably coupled to be controlled by the user control unit via the controller, the medical instrument including a force sensor unit, the method comprising [0088]-[0106] disclosing a medical instrument with sensor operated by a user with a controller):
receiving, via the controller, a first output signal from the force sensor unit in response to a first commanded movement of a distal end portion of the medical instrument within a cannula (at least [0089]-[0106] disclosing a first command to move the manipulator distal end portion within a shaft “cannula”);
determining, via the controller, a force sensor bias value based on a difference between a portion of the first output signal and a baseline output signal for the force sensor unit ([0089]-[0106] disclosing determining a bias of the force by subtracting an offset indicative of the baseline where the gravitational force and motion related forces are indicative of baseline forces when no contact is even there to obtain accurate contact force. See also [0116]-[0125]);
receiving, via the controller, a second output signal from the force sensor unit in response to a second commanded movement, the second output signal being modified by the force sensor bias value ([0089]-[0106] disclosing determining a bias of the force by subtracting an offset indicative of the baseline where the gravitational force and motion related forces are indicative of baseline forces when no contact is even there to obtain accurate contact force. See also [0116]-[0125], it is interpreted from the citation that the offset is applied to all commands thus to a second and third command);
determining, via the controller, whether the force sensor bias value is valid based on a deviation magnitude between the second output signal and the baseline output signal, the force sensor bias value being valid on a condition that the deviation magnitude is within a predefined tolerance range ([0157]-[[0159] disclosing the procedure to ensure that the offset remains valid within a reference deviation based also on the compensation force indicative of a difference from zero remain near zero thus the difference between the force with compensation and the baseline of a rest when no external forces remains near zero).
Ruiz does not explicitly teach the difference between second output and baseline, and on a condition that the force sensor bias value is valid, providing, via a haptic feedback module of the controller, a haptic feedback to the user control unit based on a load indication from the force sensor unit as modified by the force sensor bias value
Wang teaches the deviation magnitude between the second output signal and the baseline output signal ([0098]-[0101] discloses the determination of a sensor drift based on the a net force existing, i.e., greater than a zero force which is baseline, herein the zero is also a threshold, therefore the offset is updated).
It would be obvious to combine and or substitute the method of determining the offset needing correction as taught by Wang to the offset correction method as taught by Ruiz yielding predictable results to solve the problem of sensor accuracy for changing conditions, and in order to verify and confirm results and for redundancy.
Verner teaches on a condition that the force sensor bias value is valid, providing, via a haptic feedback module of the controller, a haptic feedback to the user control unit based on a load indication from the force sensor unit as modified by the force sensor bias value ([0044]-[0045] disclosing the corrected force is used to provide the load indication to the surgeon).
It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Verner of providing feedback after a force is corrected with the force correction as taught by Ruiz as modified by Wang in order to more accurately provide the haptic feedback allowing the correct force to be felt by the user thus leading to more accurate robot control by the user. While Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner may not disclose a predetermined range Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Ruiz with such a range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 59, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 55, wherein: the method includes: determining, via the controller, a difference between a magnitude of the force sensor bias value and a defined maximum force sensor bias value, and on a condition in which the magnitude of the force sensor bias value exceeds the maximum force sensor bias value, providing, via the controller, an error signal to an operator of the surgical system (Ruiz [0157]-[0160] disclosing the determination of the maximum deviation from current offset, i.e., maximum value of offset and providing a warning to the operator based on the offset value).
Regarding claim 60, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 55, wherein:
the first commanded movement includes establishing the distal end portion of the medical instrument in a first pose, transitioning the distal end portion away from the first pose, and returning the distal end portion to the first pose (Ruiz [0095] disclosing the determination of the drift by including a command to move the effector back to a zero position); and
the method includes: determining, via the controller, a variability of the first output signal between each instance of the distal end portion in the first pose, and on a condition in which the variability exceeds a maximum variability value, providing, via the controller, an error signal to an operator of the surgical system ([0157]-[0160] disclosing the return to the zero position and determining if an error is still within a range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Ruiz commands to be a single command yielding predictable results in order to determine a sensor drift as taught by Ruiz.
Regarding claim 61, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 60, wherein: the method includes:
on a condition in which the variability exceeds the maximum variability value, repeating the first commanded movement of the distal end portion of the medical instrument within the cannula to generate a replacement first output signal, and determining, via the controller, the force sensor bias value based at least in part on the replacement first output signal ([0157]-[0160] disclosing when the variability is over a threshold to generate a bias replacement values).
Regarding claim 63, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 55, wherein: the portion of the first output signal is associated with the medical instrument being in a specified sampling pose (Ruiz [0116], [0170], [0158]-[0160], [0090]-[0096], [0129]-[0132] disclosing sampling poses including the pose where almost zero force is found).
Regarding claim 64, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 63, wherein: the specified sampling pose includes a roll orientation of the distal end portion of the medical instrument that corresponds to a defined zero orientation (Ruiz [0116], [0170], [0158]-[0160], [0090]-[0096] including the pose where almost zero force is found disclosing the zero orientation of the medical tool).
Claims 69, 74 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 55, 59 respectively, see above rejection.
Claims 56, 68, 70, 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ruiz (US20130012930 from IDS) in view of Wang (US20200341584) and Verner (US20140236177) and Crawford (US10874466).
Regarding claim 56, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 55, wherein:
the first commanded movement includes a roll motion of the distal end portion about a longitudinal shaft axis from a first roll limit, through a neutral roll orientation, to a second roll limit, and back to the neutral roll orientation (Ruiz [0030], [0116], [0130], [0170] disclosing the series of measurements for a command including a command that covers the rotation roll motion at a sufficient range, i.e., from a first rest position indicative of neutral to a second roll limit); and
Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner does not teach the controller maintains the distal end portion of the medical instrument within the cannula throughout the roll motion.
Crawford teaches the controller maintains the distal end portion of the medical instrument within the cannula throughout the roll motion (col. 15 lines 25-50 disclosing the rotation of the tool when the distal end remains in the cannula through the roll motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Crawford with the roll movement as taught by Ruiz yielding predictable results solving the solution of determining forces in different conditions and allowing the determination of the minimal forces indicative of zero force in certain directions when the rotation is inside the tube. While Ruiz may not disclose the return to the neutral roll, the range of angles is disclosed by Ruiz, Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Ruiz with such a range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 71, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 69, wherein:
the first commanded movement includes a linear movement of the distal end portion parallel to the longitudinal shaft axis (Ruiz [0030], [0056], [0116], [0130], [0170] disclosing the series of measurements for a command including a command that covers movement down an axis of the tool); and
Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner does not teach the controller maintains the distal end portion of the medical instrument within the cannula throughout the linear motion.
Crawford teaches the controller maintains the distal end portion of the medical instrument within the cannula throughout the linear movement (col. 15 lines 25-50 disclosing the rotation of the tool when the distal end remains in the cannula through the motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Crawford with the roll movement as taught by Ruiz yielding predictable results solving the solution of determining forces in different conditions and allowing the determination of the minimal forces indicative of zero force in certain directions when the rotation is inside the tube. While Ruiz may not disclose the return to the neutral roll, the range of angles is disclosed by Ruiz, Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Ruiz with such a range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 68, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 55, the method includes: on a condition in which the difference between the second output signal and the baseline output signal falls outside the tolerance range, providing, via the controller, an error signal to an operator of the surgical system (Ruiz [0156]-[0160] disclosing when the difference is more than a threshold to issue an error); and
implementing a command action based at least in part on the error signal, implementing the command action includes: repeating the first commanded movement of the distal end portion of the medical instrument within the cannula to generate a replacement first output signal, determining, via the controller, a replacement force sensor bias value based on a difference between a portion of the replacement first output signal and the baseline output signal for the force sensor unit (Ruiz [0088]-[0106], [0156]-[0160] disclosing repeating the steps in order to obtain a different bias which is interpreted as including the new poses to determine the new bias when the no load zone indicative of no load is showing a load over a threshold even after the zeroing to correct the error by replacing the bias after a new force “indicative of replacement force” is detected), and
Verner teaches providing, via the controller, the haptic feedback to the user control unit based on the load indication from the force sensor unit as modified by the replacement force sensor bias value ([0044]-[0045] disclosing the corrected force is used to provide the load indication to the surgeon).
It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Verner of providing feedback after a force is corrected with the force correction as taught by Ruiz as modified by Wang in order to more accurately provide the haptic feedback allowing the correct force to be felt by the user thus leading to more accurate robot control by the user.
Crawford teaches the the distal end portion of the medical instrument within the cannula throughout the roll motion (col. 15 lines 25-50 disclosing the rotation of the tool when the distal end remains in the cannula through the roll motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Crawford with the roll movement as taught by Ruiz yielding predictable results solving the solution of determining forces in different conditions and allowing the determination of the minimal forces indicative of zero force in certain directions when the rotation is inside the tube. While Ruiz may not disclose the return to the neutral roll, the range of angles is disclosed by Ruiz, Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Ruiz with such a range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 70 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 56, see above rejection.
Claims 57, 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ruiz (US20130012930 from IDS) in view of Wang (US20200341584) and Verner (US20140236177) and Yang (US20200038121).
Regarding claim 57, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 55, but does not teach wherein: the manipulator unit includes a plurality of motors and a plurality of drive discs; each individual drive disc of the plurality of drive discs is coupled to a corresponding individual motor of the plurality of motors; the medical instrument includes a plurality of instrument discs configured to receive motion from the plurality of drive discs to move the distal end portion; each individual instrument disc of the plurality of instrument discs is configured to engage a corresponding individual drive disc of the plurality of drive discs; and the method includes: detecting, via the controller, an installation of the medical instrument on the manipulator unit, initiating, via the controller, an engagement process for the medical instrument in response to detecting the installation, and rotating, via the controller, at least one of the plurality of drive discs via the plurality of motors until the drive disc engages the corresponding instrument disc and a stop condition is achieved for the drive disc.
Yang teaches the manipulator unit includes a plurality of motors and a plurality of drive discs; each individual drive disc of the plurality of drive discs is coupled to a corresponding individual motor of the plurality of motors ([0115]-[0120] disclosing the plurality of motors couplings “discs” connected to the motors to connect to instrument discs)
the medical instrument includes a plurality of instrument discs configured to receive motion from the plurality of drive discs to move the distal end portion ([0115]-[0120] disclosing the connection between the motor couplings and the instrument couplings on the instrument base);
each individual instrument disc of the plurality of instrument discs is configured to engage a corresponding individual drive disc of the plurality of drive discs ([0115] disclosing the engagement between the plurality of couplings on the motor drive and the instrument); and
the method includes:
detecting, via the controller, an installation of the medical instrument on the manipulator unit ([0115]-[0120] disclosing the detection of the installation of the tool instrument),
initiating, via the controller, an engagement process for the medical instrument in response to detecting the installation ([0115]-[0120] disclosing after the installation the rotation is initiated in order to engage the pins on the motor coupling or the instrument with one another), and
rotating, via the controller, at least one of the plurality of drive discs via the plurality of motors until the drive disc engages the corresponding instrument disc and a stop condition is achieved for the drive disc ([0115]-[0120] disclosing the rotation until the engagement takes place with is the stop condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the instrument and motor design as taught by Yang yielding predictable results and as an obvious choice of medical instruments. The combination of the calibration method as taught by Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner is obvious in order to improve a control of any surgical instrument by correcting bias of force information.
Claim 72 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 57, see above rejection.
Claims 58, 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ruiz (US20130012930 from IDS) in view of Wang (US20200341584) and Verner (US20140236177) and Yang (US20200038121) and Liao (US20180168756).
Regarding claim 58, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner and Yang teaches the method of claim 57, wherein: but does not explicitly teach the plurality of drive discs includes a roll-drive disc configured to generate a roll motion of the distal end portion of the medical instrument about a longitudinal shaft axis; and the method includes: maintaining the roll-drive disc at a first roll limit, rotating at least one non-roll-drive disc of the plurality of drive discs to a neutral position, and executing the first commanded movement by generating the roll motion of the distal end portion through a roll range of motion to a second roll limit.
Liao teaches the plurality of drive discs includes a roll-drive disc configured to generate a roll motion of the distal end portion of the medical instrument about a longitudinal shaft axis; and the method includes ([0083]-[0110] disclosing the discs that are rotated to roll motion thus roll discs for rotating the instrument around shaft axis):
maintaining the roll-drive disc at a first roll limit ([0083]-[0110] disclosing the setting of a position that the roll drive disc and other discs to be at),
rotating at least one non-roll-drive disc of the plurality of drive discs to a neutral position ([0083]-[0110] disclosing the other disc that rotates to translate or move a guidewire being movable in different positions including a neutral position, herein a neutral position is any position), and
executing the first commanded movement by generating the roll motion of the distal end portion through a roll range of motion to a second roll limit ([0083]-[0110] disclosing the movement command to different set of motions including different roll positions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Liao of rotating the different motions using different motors as an obvious design choice of robotic instrument movement and for solving robot control in different directions separately, The combination of the calibration method as taught by Ruiz as modified by Shimodaira and Wang and Verner is obvious in order to improve a control of any surgical instrument by correcting bias of force information.
Claim 73 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 58, see above rejection.
Claims 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ruiz (US20130012930 from IDS) in view of Wang (US20200341584) and Verner (US20140236177) and Shimodaira (US20190077017)
Regarding claim 62, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Vernon teaches the method of claim 55, wherein: the medical instrument includes a beam coordinate system having a first axis, a second axis, and a third axis that are orthogonal to one another; the force sensor bias value is a first force sensor bias value that is parallel to the first axis; and the method includes: resolving, via the controller, the first output signal in the beam coordinate system to determine a first axis component, a second axis component, and a third axis component of the first output signal, determining, via the controller, a second force sensor bias value parallel to the second axis based on a difference between a portion of the second axis component and a baseline second axis component, and determining, via the controller, a third force sensor bias value parallel to the third axis based on a difference between a portion of the third axis component and a baseline third axis component.
Shimodaira teaches the medical instrument includes a beam coordinate system having a first axis, a second axis, and a third axis that are orthogonal to one another ([0050]-[0065] disclosing the three axis orthogonal to each others wherein the force is detected for all the axis for the manipulator);
the force sensor bias value is a first force sensor bias value that is parallel to the first axis; and the method includes ([0066]-[0074] disclosing determining the bias for all the axis ):
resolving, via the controller, the first output signal in the beam coordinate system to determine a first axis component, a second axis component, and a third axis component of the first output signal ([0066]-[0074] disclosing the first, second and third axis wherein the component is determined for the bias),
determining, via the controller, a second force sensor bias value parallel to the second axis based on a difference between a portion of the second axis component and a baseline second axis component ([0066]-[0074] disclosing determining the difference from baseline for all axis), and
determining, via the controller, a third force sensor bias value parallel to the third axis based on a difference between a portion of the third axis component and a baseline third axis component ([0066]-[0074] disclosing the difference from baseline for all axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and or substitute the method of calculating the offset based on different axis as taught by Shimodaira yielding predictable results in order to solve the same problem of determining a bias to correct a sensor offset thus improving robotic control.
Claims 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ruiz (US20130012930 from IDS) in view of Wang (US20200341584) and Verner (US20140236177) and Sakamoto (US20200101620).
Regarding claim 65, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner teaches the method of claim 55, wherein: but does not teach determining the force sensor bias value includes identifying a free-space portion of the first output signal that corresponds to a free-space condition of the distal end portion of the medical instrument; and the force sensor bias value corresponds to the difference between an average magnitude of the free-space portion of the first output signal and the baseline output signal for the force sensor unit.
Sakamoto teaches determining the force sensor bias value includes identifying a free-space portion of the first output signal that corresponds to a free-space condition of the distal end portion of the medical instrument; and the force sensor bias value corresponds to the difference between an average magnitude of the free-space portion of the first output signal and the baseline output signal for the force sensor unit ([0044] disclosing the non contact with the ground thus the force sensor should give a value of zero. [0086]-[0095] disclosing in the non contact space where it is expected to has zero force, the average of force found is indicative of the bias since that average subtracted from zero is the average).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or substitute the method of determining the average of forces difference from baseline of zero as bias yielding predictable results to solve the same problem of calibrating a drifted sensor value as taught by Sakamoto and for redundancy and verification.
Claims 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ruiz (US20130012930 from IDS) in view of Wang (US20200341584) and Verner (US20140236177) and Sakamoto (US20200101620) and Faingersh (US20240189024).
Regarding claim 66, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner and Sakamoto further teaches the method of claim 65, wherein: the method includes:
Sakamoto determining, via the controller, a confidence score for the free-space portion, and implementing, via the controller, a command action based at least in part on the confidence score ([0044], [0086]-[0096] disclosing a guaranteed non contact space which is indicative of a 100 percent confidence and the command to be in the guaranteed free space); and
the confidence score is indicative of a correlation between the free-space portion and a condition of the medical instrument in which the first commanded movement of the medical instrument is not affected by contact with another object [0044] disclosing the non contact with the ground thus the force sensor should give a value of zero. [0086]-[0095] disclosing in the non contact space where it is expected to has zero force, the average of force found is indicative of the bias since that average subtracted from zero is the average, herein the method for the first movement into the guaranteed free space is based on the space being guaranteed no movement thus 100% confidence and there is no contact with any object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or substitute the method of determining the average of forces difference from baseline of zero as bias yielding predictable results to solve the same problem of calibrating a drifted sensor value as taught by Sakamoto and for redundancy and verification.
While Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner and Sakamoto does not explicitly disclose confidence score.
Faingersh discloses a confidence score for determining confidence of contact with a zone or not ([0025], [0095]-[0120], [0145]-[0146], [0170]-[0180] disclosing a probability of contact or not contacting a structure for using measurements for calibration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the score of Faingersh with the determining free zone of Sakamoto in order to increase accuracy of the determination of free space and force magnitude which is used in calibration data as taught in [0025]. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Faingersh with such range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Ruiz (US20130012930 from IDS) in view of Wang (US20200341584) and Verner (US20140236177) and Sakamoto (US20200101620) and Faingersh (US20240189024) and Katz (US20150374448) and Ludwin (US20150065851).
Claim 67, Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner and Sakamoto and Faingersh teaches the method of claim 66, wherein: implementing the command action includes:
the first commanded movement of the distal end portion of to generate a replacement first output signal (Ruiz [0088]-[0106], [0156]-[0160] disclosing repeating the steps in order to obtain a different bias which is interpreted as including the new poses to determine the new bias when the no load zone indicative of no load is showing a load over a threshold even after the zeroing to correct the error by replacing the bias after a new force “indicative of replacement force” is detected),
Crawford teaches the distal end portion of the medical instrument within the cannula (col. 15 lines 25-50 disclosing the rotation of the tool when the distal end remains in the cannula through the roll motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Crawford with the roll movement as taught by Ruiz yielding predictable results solving the solution of determining forces in different conditions and allowing the determination of the minimal forces indicative of zero force in certain directions when the rotation is inside the tube. While Ruiz may not disclose the return to the neutral roll, the range of angles is disclosed by Ruiz, Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Ruiz with such a range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
While Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner and Sakamoto and Faingersh does not teach on a condition in which the confidence score is less than a confidence score threshold, repeating movement.
Katz teaches on a condition in which the confidence score movement ([0038]-[0060] disclosing the measurements are to be repeated when confidence is low such as by determining distance too close to the organs).
Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of determining to remove the tool in the calibration movement as taught by Ruiz as modified by Wang and Verner to repeat the calibration based on a contact and non contact thus in order to improve the accuracy of the calibration and avoid errors such as calibration in a contact state which would cause very wrong control of the robot even leading to serious damage or injury of a person.
Faingersh teaches is less than a confidence score threshold ([0025], [0095]-[0120], [0145]-[0146], [0170]-[0180] disclosing a probability of contact or not contacting a structure for using measurements for calibration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the score of Faingersh with the determining free zone of Sakamoto in order to increase accuracy of the determination of free space and force magnitude which is used in calibration data as taught in [0025]. The inclusion of the threshold measurements and score improves the confidence. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have provide to Faingersh with such range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Ludwin teaches identifying a replacement free-space portion of the first output signal, and determining the force sensor bias value based at least in part on the replacement free-space portion ([0046]-[0071] disclosing determining a free zone where there is no contact based on the output of the sensor force and determining a sensor bias based on the replacement free space, herein the replacement free space portion is indicative of when the force sensor determines again the free portion such as the third sensor reading free force point where calibration takes place);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine/substitute the teaching of Ludwin to determine based on force that the force is indicative of a free force zone where calibration should happen in order to solve the problem of calibration and obtain more accurate calibration verifying free zone and for redundancy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20230165649 disclosing biasing the sensor values.
US20230110248 disclosing biasing sensor values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights