DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/395,944, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 8 and 18 recite the limitation “by a virtual reality headset”. However, what appears disclosed in 18/395,944 is that of a “head-up display” which may “for example” display “captured video” ([0061] of the originally filed Specification filed 12/26/2023). The term “virtual reality” does not appear disclosed, and what does appear disclosed based on the above is not virtual reality, the environment not being artificial or otherwise virtual, but a reproduced real environment. In other words, what appears disclosed is simple tele-operation rather than virtual or even augmented reality.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The term “central hub” has been interpreted as meaning a central or main component, wherein the metes and bounds are determined only by the limitations provided within the claim. In other words, a “central hub” may be any single or combination of component(s) within the prior art absent clear limitations within the claims.
At present, no such limitations appear to exist.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 5 – 7, 11 – 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of at least claims 1 – 2, 4, 7 – 9, 11 – 12, and 16 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12370677. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
For additional clarity, see the claim specific mapping below, wherein “at least” indicates the claim considered as claiming the same invention is not limited thereto:
Claim 1 to at least Claim 1
Claim 5 to at least Claim 4
Claim 6 to at least Claim 11
Claim 7 to at least Claim 9
Claim 11 to at least Claim 7 or 12
Claim 12 to at least Claim 8
Claim 16 to at least Claim 16
Claim 19 to at least Claim 2
Claims 2 – 3, 9 – 10, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons:
With respect to Claim 2, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of what is already claimed in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 for the rotary actuator to rotate at least 180 degrees. It is common knowledge that any rotary actuator will rotate as close to at least a full 360 degrees as possible to have a full degree of freedom range of motion.
With respect to Claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of what is already claimed in at least Claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 for both arms to be capable of tool exchange. There is no reason for a particular arm to be excluded. See also alternatively Inokuchi below which explicitly teaches both arms having tool exchange for the clear and obvious purpose of having exchangeability on both arms.
With respect to Claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of what is already claimed in at least Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 to automate control. Automated control is foundational common knowledge of robotics and the claim does not even specify the nature of the control or the task, even to the point where the first and second task must be distinct and separate.
With respect to Claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of what is already claimed in at least Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 to automate control. Automated control is foundational common knowledge of robotics and the claim does not even specify the nature of the control or the task, even to the point where the first and second task must be distinct and separate. It is similarly of common knowledge to utilize data relevant to the components involved in said control.
With respect to Claim 20, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of what is already claimed in Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 for the rotary actuator to rotate at least 180 degrees. It is common knowledge that any rotary actuator will rotate as close to at least a full 360 degrees as possible to have a full degree of freedom range of motion.
Claims 4 and 13 – 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 in view of Hull et al. (US 20170097435 A1). Hull discloses the incorporation of electrical energy sensors in robots operating in an aerial work environment. Furthermore, any sensor mounted in the robot would inherently need to be coupled to all parts thereof, even if indirectly. See prior art rejection of same claim below.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 in view of Hull et al. The same logic as provided above applies. See prior art rejection of same claim below.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 in view of Hull et al. Hull discloses avoidance based on detected electrical energy. See prior art rejection of same claim below.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12370677 B2 in view of Hares (US 20230329818 A1). Hares discloses the use of a virtual reality headset to control an operator of a robotic device (e.g. [0044]).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9 – 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi (US 20010055525 A1).
It is unclear if the disclosure of Inokuchi indicates that the “embodiments” are completely separate embodiments or merely indicate variously combinable features, particular due to the ambiguous nature of the language in the disclosure, such as the abstract, the section “Disclosure of the Invention” ([0017] – [0055]), and the figures (which already may or may not be distinct embodiments) which sometimes showing illustrate one view.
Therefore, while the claims may be appropriately rejected under 35 USC § 102, in the interest of compact prosecution a rejection under 35 USC § 103 in combination with Inokuchi itself is provided. It is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that any feature not clearly incompatible disclosed within Inokuchi should be combinable, though further explanation is provided with respect to at least Claim 1 below.
Regarding Claim 1, Inokuchi discloses:
A robot system for performing aerial tasks in an aerial work environment, the robot system comprising:
a robot unit disposed on an aerial platform and configured to perform a first task in the aerial work environment, the robot unit comprising:
a central hub (See at least Figure 5, in particular sliding device 7 connected to unlabeled “L” shaped portion between base 4, automatic tool changer (ATC) 8, sliding device 7, and robot controller 13 of the same Figure, and base 4. These three items are presently considered a “central hub” though more or less components may be considered as such due to the broad construction of the term) comprising a central hub bottom coupled to a top of the aerial platform (See at least Figure 5 or “a base 4 provided at the end of the insulated boom 3” of [0096]);
a first utility arm coupled to a central hub first side (See at least Figure 5 and manipulator 5);
a second utility arm coupled to a central hub second side (See at least Figure 5 and manipulator 6), …
a camera mount coupled to a central hub top (See at least cameras 12A and 12B and Figure 1 and Figure 5), wherein the central hub top is opposite the central hub bottom (See at least Figures 1, 4, and 5 best illustrating their locations and discussion of “central hub” preceding); and
a camera coupled to the camera mount (See again discussion with respect to camera mount) and configured to obtain images of the aerial work environment (Inherent to mounted location. See also “cameras 12A, 12B for photographing states of operation” of [0096]); and
a robotic auxiliary arm configured to perform a second task in the aerial work environment (See at least [0096] “arm 10 in a three-shaft configuration having a function of suspending heavy objects and pivoting and elevating functions”),
wherein the robotic auxiliary arm is operable to extend to the central hub first side of the central hub (See at least [0099] “FIG. 4 is a side view of the arm 10 in which 41 represents a pivot”, Figure 4 clearly illustrating the pivot by a double headed, arcing arrow with “-” and “+” above 41, and Figures 1 and 5 which clearly shows that pivoting would cause arm 10 to extend to either the first or second side).
It is not wholly clear if Figure 5 and the disclosure related thereto of sliding device 7 (for example [0106]) indicate that the mounting of the manipulators 5, 6 are directly to each side of sliding device 7. Furthermore, it is unclear if later figures clearly illustrating this feature are considered separate embodiments. See for example, Figures 21, 24, and 25 clearly illustrate sliding devices 7L and 7R and fixed base 121 or 122. Finally, the claims do not claim a direct coupling with no intervening structures, leaving this limitation especially broad under BRI.
Thus, while it is considered highly probable that the following limitation is disclosed by Inokuchi without resorting to what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the interest of compact prosecution Inokuchi does not clearly and explicitly teach:
…
wherein the central hub first side and the central hub second side are opposite (See at least Figures 21, 24, and 25 clearly illustrate sliding devices 7L and 7R and fixed base 121 or 122);
…
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to at minimum place the manipulators to each side, if not additionally place them on sliders as illustrated by Inokuchi in combination with the configuration of Figure 5 or others or Inokuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. Inokuchi in at least [0015] indicates that such structure better allows of the manipulators to “work on an object interposed between the robots”.
Regarding Claim 2, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 1, further comprising:
a rotary actuator coupling the robotic auxiliary arm to a bottom of the aerial platform, wherein the bottom of the aerial platform is opposite the top of the aerial platform (The claim does not presently recite coupled directly to the bottom or “disposed at the bottom” or similar narrower language. See again Figures 4 and 5 and discussed pivot 41, as well as [0101] “an actuator for driving the pivot of the arm 10 may be configured on an electrical basis” indicating it is actuated), and
wherein the rotary actuator is configured to provide at least 180-degree rotation to the robotic auxiliary arm around the robot unit (See at least Figures 4 and 5. Examine furthermore notes that this does not appear explicitly disclosed in Applicant’s specification, or the application from which priority is derived further indicating that this is properly interpreted as common knowledge for a rotating actuator to have at least 180 degrees of free rotation)
Regarding Claim 3, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 1, further comprising:
a tool holder configured to support a plurality of tools (See at least automatic tool changer (ATC) 8),
wherein the first utility arm and the second utility arm are configured to exchange tools with the tool holder (See at least [0096] “an automatic tool changer (ATC) 8 for automatically changing tools required for the operation of the two-armed manipulators 5, 6”).
Regarding Claim 5, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 1, further comprising a part holder configured to support parts necessary for completing the first task (See at least [0096] “automatic material exchanger (AMC) 9 capable of automatically picking up and returning materials required for the operation of the manipulators 5, 6”).
Regarding Claim 6, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 5, wherein the part holder is accessible from the central hub first side and the central hub second side (See at least [0096] “automatic material exchanger (AMC) 9 capable of automatically picking up and returning materials required for the operation of the manipulators 5, 6”.
Furthermore, in the interest of compact prosuction, Examiner notes that this is an especially broad phrasing and does not state that a particular component, person, etc. needs to be able to access the part holder using a particular means, etc.).
Regarding Claim 7, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 1, further comprising:
a plurality of sensors configured to detect a state of the robot unit and the robotic auxiliary arm (See at least three-dimensional distance measuring device 11, cameras 12A, 12B, sensor 155, and sensor 197); and
at least one processor configured to collect robot unit sensor data and robotic auxiliary arm sensor data by the plurality of sensors (See at least [0096] “a robot controller 13 for controlling the two-armed manipulators 5, 6, sliding device 7, ATC 8, AMC 9, arm 10, three-dimensional distance measuring device 11 and cameras 12A, 12B” and the above sensors, wherein camera 12B is mounted on the robotic auxiliary arm (arm 10) and camera 12A as shown in Figures 1 and 5 may collect views including arm 10).
Regarding Claim 9, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to automatically control the robotic auxiliary arm to perform the second task based on the state of the robotic auxiliary arm (The nature of “automatically control” is not claimed with any particularity. See again [0096] “a robot controller 13 for controlling … arm 10”).
Regarding Claim 10, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to automatically control the robot unit to perform the first task based on the state of the robot unit and the state of the robotic auxiliary arm (The nature of “automatically control” is not claimed with any particularity and the phrasing “based on” is similarly vague and unspecific inasmuch as the “state” is not claimed and the nature of the basis is not claimed. For example, the state may simply be that of having power or existing. See again [0096] ““a robot controller 13 for controlling the two-armed manipulators 5, 6, sliding device 7, ATC 8, AMC 9, arm 10, three-dimensional distance measuring device 11 and cameras 12A, 12B”).
Regarding Claim 11, Inokuchi teaches:
The claim recites effectively the same limitations as Claim 1 up until after the limitation “a robotic auxiliary arm”. Thus, only the remaining limitations are addressed below. Please refer to Claim 1 above with respect to the rest.
…
a tool holder configured to support a plurality of tools (See at least automatic tool changer (ATC) 8); and
a part holder configured to support one or more parts for completing the first task (See at least [0096] “automatic material exchanger (AMC) 9 capable of automatically picking up and returning materials required for the operation of the manipulators 5, 6”).
Regarding Claim 12, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 11,
wherein the first utility arm and the second utility arm are configured to exchange tools with the tool holder (See at least [0096] “an automatic tool changer (ATC) 8 for automatically changing tools required for the operation of the two-armed manipulators 5, 6”), and
wherein the part holder is accessible from the central hub first side and the central hub second side (See at least [0096] “automatic material exchanger (AMC) 9 capable of automatically picking up and returning materials required for the operation of the manipulators 5, 6”.
Furthermore, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that this is an especially broad phrasing and does not state that a particular component, person, etc. needs to be able to access the part holder using a particular means, etc.).
Regarding Claim 16, Inokuchi teaches:
A method of performing work tasks in an aerial work environment by a robot system, the method comprising:
obtaining video data (Video data is a series of images. See at least [0097] “a monitor (CRT monitor device) 20 for displaying images transmitted from the cameras 12 through an optical cable 18”) of the aerial work environment by a camera top (See at least cameras 12A and 12B and Figure 1 and Figure 5) mounted on a top side(See at least Figures 1, 4, and 5 best illustrating their locations) of a central hub of a robot unit (See at least Figure 5, in particular sliding device 7 connected to unlabeled “L” shaped portion between base 4, automatic tool changer (ATC) 8, sliding device 7, and robot controller 13 of the same Figure, and base 4. These three items are presently considered a “central hub” though more or less components may be considered as such due to the broad construction of the term),
wherein the central hub is coupled to and support by an aerial platform on a bottom side of the central hub opposite the top side (See at least Figure 5 or “a base 4 provided at the end of the insulated boom 3” of [0096]);
performing a first task (See at least Abstract “manipulators of multishaft construction for performing a distribution work”) by a first utility arm and a second utility arm of the robot unit (See at least Figure 5 and manipulators 5, 6),
wherein the first utility arm is disposed on a first side of the central hub, and the second utility arm is disposed on a second side of the central hub (See again above), wherein
…
performing a second task in the aerial work environment by a robotic auxiliary arm coupled to the aerial platform (See at least arm 10 and [0004] “lightweight third arm having a function of suspending heavy matters).
It is not wholly clear if Figure 5 and the disclosure related thereto of sliding device 7 (for example [0106]) indicate that the mounting of the manipulators 5, 6 are directly to each side of sliding device 7. Furthermore, it is unclear if later figures clearly illustrating this feature are considered separate embodiments. See for example, Figures 21, 24, and 25 clearly illustrate sliding devices 7L and 7R and fixed base 121 or 122. Finally, the claims do not claim a direct coupling with no intervening structures, leaving this limitation especially broad under BRI.
Thus, while it is considered highly probable that the following limitation is disclosed by Inokuchi without resorting to what would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the interest of compact prosecution Inokuchi does not clearly and explicitly teach:
…
the first side is opposite the second side; and
…
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to at minimum place the manipulators to each side, if not additionally place them on sliders as illustrated by Inokuchi in combination with the configuration of Figure 5 or others or Inokuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. Inokuchi in at least [0015] indicates that such structure better allows of the manipulators to “work on an object interposed between the robots”.
Regarding Claim 20, Inokuchi teaches:
The method of claim 16, further comprising controlling the robotic auxiliary arm to extend at least 180-degrees around the robot unit (See at least Figures 4 and 5. Examine furthermore notes that this does not appear explicitly disclosed in Applicant’s specification, or the application from which priority is derived further indicating that this is properly interpreted as common knowledge for a rotating actuator to have at least 180 degrees of free rotation).
Claims 4, 13 – 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi et al. in view of Hull et al. (US 20170097435 A1).
Examiner notes that as presently so broadly constructed, these limitations are likely disclosed by Inokuchi through any current sensor, voltage sensor, etc. of the robot, which are normally an inherent and required component for any electrical control which is disclosed. The robot is clearly “in the aerial work environment” and “an electrical component” is not claimed as being of an external, separate, etc. component such as a powerline or similar. The nature of “coupled to” where used is likewise not claimed with any particularity. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, see the below which teaches what is believed to have been a narrower intended meaning.
Regarding Claim 4, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 1,
Inokuchi does not teach, but Hull teaches:
further comprising an electrical energy sensor configured to detect electrical energy of an electrical component in the aerial work environment (See at least [0034] “Both the electric field E and magnetic field H can be measured at any point in space around the power lines using appropriate electric- and magnetic-field sensors, as later discussed” and [0041] “For measurement of the electric E and magnetic H fields, the aerial vehicle is equipped with sensors 405, 410 configured to measure the electric field and the magnetic field, respectively. The outputs 406, 411 from the sensors 405, 410 are fed into the power line detection controller 420”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate electric field and/or magnetic field sensors as taught by Hull in Inokuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. These sensors are used for power line detection, navigation, inspection, and avoidance in Hull which are all applicable applications of Inokuchi.
Regarding Claim 13, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 11,
Inokuchi does not teach, but Hull teaches:
further comprising an electrical energy sensor configured to detect electrical energy of an electrical component in the aerial work environment (See at least [0034] “Both the electric field E and magnetic field H can be measured at any point in space around the power lines using appropriate electric- and magnetic-field sensors, as later discussed” and [0041] “For measurement of the electric E and magnetic H fields, the aerial vehicle is equipped with sensors 405, 410 configured to measure the electric field and the magnetic field, respectively. The outputs 406, 411 from the sensors 405, 410 are fed into the power line detection controller 420”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate electric field and/or magnetic field sensors as taught by Hull in Inokuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. These sensors are used for power line detection, navigation, inspection, and avoidance in Hull which are all applicable applications of Inokuchi.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Inokuchi and Hull teaches:
The robot system of claim 13,
Inokuchi does not teach, but in combination with Hull teaches:
wherein the electrical energy sensor is coupled to the robotic auxiliary arm (See again above. The nature of “coupled to” is not claimed with any particularity.
Examiner notes in the interest of compact prosecution that the combination of the teachings of Inokuchi and Hull would indicate that the sensors should be located with the any arm/manipulator as they are the portions most likely to interact with, come close to, etc. an energized component).
Regarding Claim 17, Inokuchi teaches:
The method of claim 16,
Inokuchi does not teach, but in combination with Hull teaches:
further comprising detecting electrical energy and perform automatic actions to remove the robot unit and the robotic auxiliary arm from the electrical energy (See at least [0045] “The power line avoidance module 425 executes processing specifically configured to avoid detected energized power lines. Once power lines are detected, an avoidance operation may then be determined, and later executed. For example, it may be possible to choose to maneuver the vehicle around or away the obstacle. Thus, power line avoidance module 425 determines appropriate maneuvers and associated control data, such as steering the vehicle to avoid detected power lines”).
This combination is already discussed with respect to Claim 13.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi et al. in view of Hares (US 20230329818 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Inokuchi teaches:
The robot system of claim 7, further comprising:
[a display] configured to display data indicative of the robot unit sensor data and the robotic auxiliary arm sensor data (See at least [0097] “a monitor (CRT monitor device) 20 for displaying images transmitted from the cameras 12 through an optical cable 18 provided in the boom 2”); and
one or more input devices associated with a user and communicatively coupled to the at least one processor for controlling the robot unit and the robotic auxiliary arm (See at least [0097] “an operation panel 19 for transmitting operation signals to the robot controller 13 through the optical cable 18 provided in the boom 2 … an operator performs remote operations of the devices 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 provided on the base 4 by operating joysticks 21, 22, 23, an operation button 24 or a touch panel 26 provided on the operation panel 19 while watching the monitor 20 to work on a hot line”).
Inokuchi does not teach, but Hares teaches:
…
a virtual reality headset (See at least [0044] “Described herein are systems, and methods, for controlling a surgical robot via a virtual console. Specifically, the systems comprise a virtual reality display device (such as, but not limited to, a virtual reality headset) configured to present a view of a virtual reality scene to an operator of the virtual reality display device, the virtual reality scene comprising a virtual screen on which a representation of a real-time video stream of a surgical site is displayed; an input tracking system configured to track a position and/or orientation of one or more free-space inputs in space; and a control unit configured to translate the tracked position and/or orientation of the one or more free-space inputs into one or more control signals to control the position of the arm of the surgical robot”)
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a virtual reality headset as taught by Hares in addition to or in place of the monitor/display of Inokuchi with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 18, Inokuchi teaches:
The method of claim 16, further comprising:
causing display of the video data (See at least [0097] “a monitor (CRT monitor device) 20 for displaying images transmitted from the cameras 12 through an optical cable 18 provided in the boom 2”) … ;
receiving user inputs from a user input device; and
controlling the robot unit and the robotic auxiliary arm based on the user inputs (See at least [0097] “an operation panel 19 for transmitting operation signals to the robot controller 13 through the optical cable 18 provided in the boom 2 … an operator performs remote operations of the devices 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 provided on the base 4 by operating joysticks 21, 22, 23, an operation button 24 or a touch panel 26 provided on the operation panel 19 while watching the monitor 20 to work on a hot line”).
Inokuchi does not teach, but Hares teaches:
…
by a virtual reality headset (See at least [0044] “Described herein are systems, and methods, for controlling a surgical robot via a virtual console. Specifically, the systems comprise a virtual reality display device (such as, but not limited to, a virtual reality headset) configured to present a view of a virtual reality scene to an operator of the virtual reality display device, the virtual reality scene comprising a virtual screen on which a representation of a real-time video stream of a surgical site is displayed; an input tracking system configured to track a position and/or orientation of one or more free-space inputs in space; and a control unit configured to translate the tracked position and/or orientation of the one or more free-space inputs into one or more control signals to control the position of the arm of the surgical robot”)
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a virtual reality headset as taught by Hares in addition to or in place of the monitor/display of Inokuchi with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi et al. in view of Hull et al., further in view of Devine et al. (US 8684333 B2).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Inokuchi and Hull teaches:
The robot system of claim 13,
Inokuchi further teaches:
wherein the robotic auxiliary arm is a first robotic auxiliary arm; and
…
the electrical energy sensor is coupled to the second robotic auxiliary arm (See again above. The nature of “coupled to” is not claimed with any particularity.
Examiner notes in the interest of compact prosecution that the combination of the teachings of Inokuchi and Hull would indicate that the sensors should be located with the any arm/manipulator as they are the portions most likely to interact with, come close to, etc. an energized component).
The particular number of robotic arms appears relatively arbitrary, particularly as Applicant appears to indicate that the purpose of the particular hub configuration disclosed is to mimic the human anatomy. Consequently, any arm in excess of two already does not read on the human anatomy.
Inokuchi and Hull do not teach, but in combination with Devine teaches:
…
further comprising a second robotic auxiliary arm (See at least Figure 7), wherein
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize at least one additional arm to perform the functions of arm 10 of Inokuchi as taught by Devine in the system of Inokuchi or Inokuchi in combination with Hull with a reasonable expectation of success. Extra arms, supports, etc. can better support a variety of shapes and components. Furthermore, the use of many arms is well known in the art of robotics (see e.g. Starr et al. (US 20210080965 A1) which uses 4 robotic manipulators of a same general configuration as well as a plow in Figure 1, and even coordinating with another same equipped unit in Figure 7 doubling the number of said components involved in a particular activity).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inokuchi et al. in view of Lin et al. (US 20230123463 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Inokuchi teaches:
The method of claim 16,
further comprising:
tracking locations of each of the first utility arm, the second utility arm, and the robotic auxiliary arm (The nature of “tracking” is not claimed with any particularity. See again [0097] “a monitor (CRT monitor device) 20 for displaying images transmitted from the cameras 12” wherein the cameras capture images of these arms and therefore “track” them); and
…
Inokuchi does not explicitly teach, but Lin teaches:
…
preventing each of the first utility arm, the second utility arm, and the robotic auxiliary arm from breaching a minimum threshold distance with any component of the robot system (See at least [0006] “In accordance with the teachings of the present disclosure, a method and system for robotic motion planning are provided which perform dynamic velocity attenuation to avoid robot collision with static or dynamic objects”, [0062] “Upon entering the online velocity modification (OVM) module, at decision diamond 902, it is determined whether the current robot-obstacle minimum distance d.sub.obs is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold distance d.sub.thresh”, and [0068] “It is preferable to implement the online velocity modification technique in all robots of a multi-robot system, so that overall efficiency can be maximized (number and duration of slowdowns minimized)”).
…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate collision avoidance such as is taught by Lin in the system of Inokuchi with a reasonable expectation of success. Collision avoidance between the manipulators of Inokuchi and obstacles and other robotic components serve the obvious benefit of protecting the manipulators, obstacles, and other robotic components from damage and preserves the safety of people at ground level.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Blanc-Paques et al. (US 11835561 B2) which discloses an unmanned aerial vehicle electromagnetic avoidance and utilization system.
Kibler et al. (US 20190302810 A1) which discloses a slew drive on an aerial platform/boom style device.
Fritel et al. (US 9938117 B2) which discloses a mobile conductor lift using three arms.
Smith et al. (US 20220212345 A1) which discloses a robotic system having a master robotic system including an exoskeleton structure having “a headset with a video screen for viewing images captured by cameras on the first and second robotic systems 104a and 104b (and/or for viewing a computer generated environment)” ([0087]).
Sykes et al. (US 20210331321 A1) which discloses a camera having a gimbal mount on a robot unit on an aerial platform.
Hashimoto et al. (US 20180243921 A1) which discloses “a head mounted display which may be attached to the operator's head” ([0047]) for facilitating control of a robotic, boom-style device remotely.
Honma (US 5286159 A) which discloses “A mobile vehicular apparatus includes an aerial control cabin mounted on a tip end of a telescopic boom by a vertical shaft for turning movement about the vertical shaft, and an aerial working device disposed in front of the aerial control cabin” (Abstract).
O’ Connel et al. (US 5538207 A) which discloses “A telescoping robotic arm for temporarily supporting energized power lines to enable repair or replacement of transmission poles, crossarms, insulators and the like” (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights