DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the RCE filled on 08/24/2026. Claims 1 and 13 are amended. 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/24/2026 has been entered.
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 (and similarly claim 13), which recites “when directly contacted with a hand of a user” is not clear. The submitted specification also does not mention “directly contacted. It is not sure directly contacted is referring user is inputting via control handle or something else? Control unit is mounted on the control handle. It is not clear whether control handle and control unit are controlled separately or in combination.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
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, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2015/0051732 (“Grygorowicz”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Grygorowicz discloses an ergonomic control device (see at least fig 1A, where a robotic arm is controlled by an operator using a control unit. 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, configured to control and/or operate the ergonomic control device when directly contacted with a hand of a user (see at least fig 1C, where control handle is marked by a bigger dashed rectangle. See also fig 1A, where control handle is contacted by a hand of a user);
- a control unit (see at least fig 1C, where control unit is marked by a smaller dashed rectangle) comprising one or more control components for controlling one or more motors (see at least fig 2, where portion of control unit is shown and K is the control button. Starting or stopping the robot arm is interpreted as control components for controlling the manipulator. See also [0042-44] and [0050]);
PNG
media_image1.png
553
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the control unit being mounted on the control handle (see at least fig 1C, where control unit is mounted on control handle), being movable relative thereto with at least two degrees of freedom, or even three degrees of freedom (see at least fig 1C, where control unit is mounted on control handle via R3), the control unit being mounted on a rotary ring rotatably mounted on the control handle 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).
Regarding claim 9, Grygorowicz further discloses a control device 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).
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) 2, 7, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0051732 (“Grygorowicz”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2021/102506 (“Phillips”), submitted with IDS.
Regarding claim 2, Grygorowicz does not disclose claim 2. However, Philips discloses a control device the control unit being devoid of a wired link (see at least fig 3, where control unit is wire free).
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 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 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]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0051732 (“Grygorowicz”), 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 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”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0054378 (“Kincaid”).
Regarding claim 4, Grygorowicz 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 rotatably 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 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”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0122049 (“Seo”).
Regarding claim 10, Grygorowicz 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 to incorporate the teachings of Seo by including the above feature for increasing robot control precision by providing alternative input for control.
Claim(s) 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 13, Grygorowicz discloses claim 13, see citation on claim 1 above. Grygorowicz does not disclose additional claim limitation “telemanipulator”. 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.
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 13 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filled on 08/24/2026, with respect to claim 1-14, have been considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends that:
“In GRYGOROWICZ, the assistance device is held by the operator H through the control handle 1, as shown for example in Figure 1A and as explained in the whole specification, for example see [0031] and [0032]. The operator H handles the assistance device in its hand by the control handle 1. The control handle cannot be interpreted as being another part of the device, for example the arm S3 of the robotic arm B, which is not handled by the operator.”
The Examiner disagrees:
S3 is part of control handle. Portion beyond S3 (right side of the picture) is interpreted as control unit and portion on the left side is interpreted as control handle, see citation above. 1 is part of control unit.
The Applicant also contends that:
“In GRYGOROWICZ, there is no separate control unit mounted on the control handle 1,
with relative mobility between them. The Examiner cites the push button K mounted on the control handle 1 as constituting the control unit according to the invention. The push button K is not mounted with at least two degrees of freedom on the control handle. However, in the invention as defined in claim 1, mobility with at least two degrees of freedom is claimed between the control handle and the control unit.”
The Examiner also disagrees:
The claim as recited does not require separate control unit for control handle. The claim limitation is interpreted as, for examination purposes, control handle controls the ergonomic control device when hand of a user is contacted. As cited above Grygorowicz discloses the claim limitation. The control unit is attached with the control handle with a ball joint. See citation above. Examiner suggests applicant review the control handle and control unit interpretation which is marked by dashed rectangular box above.
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 5712703976. 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
Prosecution Insights