DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 4/14/2025. Claims 1-14 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FR 2211278, filed on 10/28/2022. PCT/EP2023/079807 was filled on 10/25/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, “control handle (5)” should be “control handle”.
Claim 13 recites, “A wall telemanipulator comprising a control device as claimed in claim 1”. From the recited claim, it is not clear if “A wall telemanipulator”, is the same wall telemanipulator as claim 1 or not. Examiner suggests that Applicant make Claim 13 separate and incorporate the text of Claim 1 into it instead of referring to Claim 1 in order to avoid antecedent issues.
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) 1-14 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, which recites “a wall telemanipulator” line 5 is not clear since a wall telemanipulator is also recited on line 1. It is not clear both wall telemanipulators are same or different.
Dependent claim(s) 2-14 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
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, 7-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0051732 (“Grygorowicz”), and further in view of WO 2021/102506 (“Phillips”), submitted with IDS.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Grygorowicz discloses an ergonomic control device, notably for a wall (see at least fig 1A, where a robotic arm is controlled by an operator using a control unit, 1. The robotic arm can be pivoted with wall/ platform/structure using P1. The robotic arm, B is interpreted as wall manipulator. See also [0006], where “The present invention aims to resolve these ergonomic, safety and efficiency problems in a satisfactory manner by proposing”), comprising:
- a control handle (see at least fig 1A, where control handle, 1);
- a control unit comprising one or more control components for controlling one or more motors, notably for a wall (see at least fig 2, where K is the control unit. Starting or stopping the robot arm is interpreted as control components for controlling the manipulator. See also [0042-44] and [0050]);
the control unit being mounted on the control handle (see at least fig 2, where K is on the control handle, 1), being movable relative thereto with at least two degrees of freedom, or even three degrees of freedom, the control unit being mounted on a rotary ring rotatably mounted on the control handle (5) and/or the control unit being mounted with a ball joint on the control handle (see at least [0032], where “This device comprises a control handle 1 mounted on the arm B of the ball-and-socket joint R3 acting as a human wrist while upstream, the segment S3 forms the equivalent of a forearm.”; ball and socket joint is interpreted as ball joint. Since joint R3 is acting as human wrist, the joint has at least two degrees of freedom).
Grygorowicz does not disclose telemanipulation. However, Philips discloses a control unit that is attached with control handle for remote control of manipulator (see at least [0002], [0045], fig 2 and fig 3, where 10 is the control device, 202 control handle. The control box is mounted on handle and moveable multiple degrees of freedom). The control unit including control handle disclosed by Philips can be attached on the robotic arm (includes ball joints) for telemanipulation.
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 Grygorowicz to incorporate the teachings of Philips by including the above feature for providing operator safety by controlling robot remotely.
Regarding claim 2, Philips further discloses a control device the control unit being devoid of a wired link (see at least fig 3, where control unit is wire free).
Regarding claim 7, Philips further discloses a control device the control unit being detachable from the control handle (see at least fig 3, where the peripheral module removed from the base module).
Regarding claim 8, Philips further discloses a control device comprising an indicator, for the selected control component (see at least fig 4, where indicators of control components are shown).
Regarding claim 9, Grygorowicz further discloses a control device as claimed in claim 1, at least one control component, or even all the control components, being tactile (see at least fig 1A, where operator is touching the handle for controlling the robotic arm).
Regarding claim 11, Grygorowicz further discloses a control device the control unit being devoid of batteries for its power supply (Grygorowicz does not mention to use of battery for power the controller).
Regarding claim 12, Philips further discloses a control device the control unit being equipped with a magnetized connection over its entire surface, allowing it to be fixed on a remote metal support (see at least [0012] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 13, Grygorowicz in view of Philips further discloses a wall telemanipulator comprising a control device as claimed in claim 1 (see citation on claim 1).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0051732 (“Grygorowicz”), and in view of WO 2021/102506 (“Phillips”), submitted with IDS, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0395861 (“Snow”).
Regarding claim 3, Grygorowicz in view of Philips does not disclose claim 3. However, Snow discloses a system being configured so that the control unit is movable between two positions symmetrical to each other relative to the control handle (see at least [0782]).
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 Grygorowicz in view of Philips to incorporate the teachings of Snow by including the above feature for increasing synchronization.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0051732 (“Grygorowicz”), and in view of WO 2021/102506 (“Phillips”), submitted with IDS, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of US 2020/0054378 (“Kincaid”).
Regarding claim 4, Grygorowicz in view of Philips does not disclose claim 4. However, Kincaid discloses a system comprising a fixed ring fixedly mounted on the control handle (see at least [0020], where “a medical guidance apparatus comprising a base ring having an inner circumference defining an opening, a moveable ring having an inner circumference defining an opening, the moveable ring being rotateably coupled with the base ring, a rotary encoder; and a guide mateable with the moveable ring”; see also [0063], base ring is interpreted as fixed ring and medical guidance apparatus is interpreted as control handle).
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 Grygorowicz in view of Philips to incorporate the teachings of Kincaid by including the above feature for increasing robustness of the fixture so that the handle does not fall down during movement.
Regarding claim 5, Kincaid further discloses a system comprising the rotary ring being mounted on the fixed ring of the control handle (see at least [0047] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Kincaid further discloses a system comprising the fixed ring being perforated and the rotary ring being mounted with a return pin in the perforation of the fixed ring (see at least [0102] and [0068]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0051732 (“Grygorowicz”), and in view of WO 2021/102506 (“Phillips”), submitted with IDS, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0122049 (“Seo”).
Regarding claim 10, Grygorowicz in view of Philips does not disclose claim 10. However, Seo discloses a control device at least one control component, or even all the control components, being tactile with voice or sound feedback (see at least [0037] and [0108]).
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 Grygorowicz in view of Philips to incorporate the teachings of Seo by including the above feature for increasing robot control precision by providing alternative input for control.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0051732 (“Grygorowicz”), and in view of WO 2021/102506 (“Phillips”), submitted with IDS, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0062371 (“Motonaga”).
Regarding claim 14, Grygorowicz in view of Philips does not disclose claim 14. However, Motonaga discloses a system comprising a relay unit configured to receive control signals from the control unit (see at least fig 1, where 224 is interpreted as relay unit).
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 Grygorowicz in view of Philips to incorporate the teachings of Motonaga by including the above feature for increasing robot control precision by providing relay unit on the robotic arm.
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 on 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 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 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657