DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Joint Inventors
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.
Priority
The filing date for the instant application is 25 June 2025, and is a Continuation of application 17/913,665 filed 22 September 2022, which is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/US2021/023799 filed on 24 March 2021, claiming domestic benefit to provisionally filed application 62/993,960 filed on 24 March 2020. As such, the effective filing date of each of the instant application's claims under examination may be as recent as the instant application's filing date of 25 June 2025, its parent application's filing date of 22 September 2022, or earlier (presuming there is appropriate specification support for each particular claim in the earlier-filed specification). In the case that a prior art rejection to one or more claims made in an office action during prosecution of the instant application includes one or more prior art references that fall somewhere between 24 March 2020 and 25 June 2025, if Applicant can specifically identify appropriate specification support for each of these claims in an earlier filed portion of this complex continuity chain, then the Examiner may determine that one or more of these prior art rejections against one or more of these claims will need to be withdrawn. As a preliminary matter, the examiner notes that sufficiency/insufficiency of data is described in provisional application 62/993,960 in paragraphs [0054-0055] and Figure [6], for instance, as will be further described below.
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of a preliminary amendment prior to the first office action. The examiner has reviewed the amendment and determined that no new matter was submitted. As such, the preliminary amendment is being considered.
The most recent claim set is dated 25 August 2025, received with the preliminary amendment. With this amendment, claims 1-35 are cancelled and claims 36-55 are new and pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) filed on 29 July 2025 and 29 January 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0062] states "The robotic system 400 of FIG. 4C…" in the second sentence of the paragraph. However, the examiner notes that the parent case 17/913,665 made applicant aware of a mistake regarding reference callouts to figures. Applicant corrected the specification of the aforementioned parent case to state "The robotic system of FIG. 4[[C]]E…" to correct the mistaken callouts. The examiner respectfully requests amendment of paragraph [0062] of the instant specification to correct reference to the Figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 37: Claim 37 states "…a second plurality of sensors disposed on the second manipulator assembly, wherein the first data comprises second sensor data."; the examiner notes that "second sensor data" is not clearly defined. The examiner understands that the intent may be to claim that the "second sensor data" pertains to the "second plurality of sensors", however this is not clearly stated in the claim. The examiner notes that the claim currently reads as a first set of data comprising a second set of data, wherein the second set of data is not limited. However, as the first set of data is clearly defined and the second set of data must be contained within the first set of data, the examiner has determined that the language is not indefinite and opted for an objection rather than a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding "sufficiency" and "insufficiency" of data, the examiner notes that first, the specification provides justification for what constitutes sufficient versus insufficient (see, for example, paragraph [0057]). Second, the instant independent claims recite that a measure of sufficiency is determined by the ability to establish an alignment relationship; a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize in light of the specification, for example, that having an occluded view (such as in paragraph [0057]) is insufficient to establish alignment, whereas a clear line of sight is sufficient to establish alignment. This is further discussed in dependent claims 45, 49, 52, for example.
Regarding "adjustment operation" (such as that found in claim 43), the examiner notes that the claim language has support from, for instance, paragraphs [0090-0094] and further discussed in dependent claims 42-44, for instance, and is considered a positive recitation of a control step.
"Spatial relationship" is described in an exemplary manner in paragraph [0061], providing a basis for understanding.
"Alignment relationship" is described in paragraph [0047], providing a basis for understanding.
"Sensor intermediary" is described in paragraph [0091, 0098], providing a basis for understanding.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 36-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 12-16, 19, 23-26 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,370,688 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the instant claims merely vary in breadth (broader) over the claims of the reference US Patent.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
36. A robotic system comprising:
a first manipulator assembly having a first base;
a second manipulator assembly having a second base, the second base separately movable relative to the first base,
1. A robotic system comprising:
a first manipulator assembly comprising a first plurality of links physically coupled to a first base, the first manipulator assembly configured to support a first tool;
a first plurality of sensors disposed on the first manipulator assembly and not on the first tool;
a second manipulator assembly comprising a second plurality of links physically coupled to a second base, the second base separately movable relative to the first base,
wherein the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly are in an operating environment; and
a processing unit including one or more processors, the processing unit configured to:
1. (continued) wherein the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly are in an operating environment; and
a processing unit including one or more processors, the processing unit configured to:
receive first data comprising first sensor data from a first plurality of sensors, wherein the first sensor data provide spatial information about the operating environment external to the first manipulator assembly;
1. (continued) receive first data including first sensor data from the first plurality of sensors, wherein the first sensor data provide spatial information about the operating environment external to the first plurality of links,
in response to a determination that the first data are insufficient to establish a first alignment relationship between the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly:
1. (continued) in response to a determination that the first data are sufficient to establish a first alignment relationship between the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly,
12. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
in response to a determination that the first data including the first sensor data are insufficient to establish the first alignment relationship, perform an adjustment operation.
facilitate receipt of additional data, the additional data providing additional spatial information about the operating environment external to the first manipulator assembly,
12. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
in response to a determination that the first data including the first sensor data are insufficient to establish the first alignment relationship, perform an adjustment operation.
16. The robotic system of claim 12, wherein the adjustment operation includes:
commanding motion of the first manipulator assembly or the second manipulator assembly to increase a sufficiency of the data.
determine a first spatial relationship of the second manipulator assembly relative to the first manipulator assembly using at least the first data and the additional data, and
1. (continued) determine a first spatial relationship of the second manipulator assembly relative to the first manipulator assembly using the first data including the first sensor data,
12. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
in response to a determination that the first data including the first sensor data are insufficient to establish the first alignment relationship, perform an adjustment operation.
16. The robotic system of claim 12, wherein the adjustment operation includes:
commanding motion of the first manipulator assembly or the second manipulator assembly to increase a sufficiency of the data.
establish the first alignment relationship between the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly based on the first spatial relationship; and
1. (continued) establish the first alignment relationship between the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly based on the first spatial relationship, and
command, based on the first alignment relationship, motion of the second manipulator assembly in response to a command from a first input device operable by an operator.
1. (continued) command, based on the first alignment relationship, motion of the second manipulator assembly in response to a command from a first input device operable by an operator.
The examiner submits that instant claim 36 is an obvious and broader form of the combination of claims 1, 12, and 16 of the reference US Patent. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the “additional data” of the instant claim is a more generic form of the methods/steps of increasing the sufficiency of data of the US Patent as recited in dependent claims 12-16, for instance. Regarding further dependent claims:
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
37. The robotic system of claim 36, wherein the first plurality of sensors is disposed on the first manipulator assembly, the robotic system further comprising:
a second plurality of sensors disposed on the second manipulator assembly, wherein the first data comprises second sensor data.
1. a first plurality of sensors disposed on the first manipulator assembly and not on the first tool;
4. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the second manipulator assembly is configured to support a second tool, the robotic system further comprising:
a second plurality of sensors disposed on the second manipulator assembly and not on the second tool;
wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
receive second sensor data from the second plurality of sensors, wherein the second sensor data provide spatial information about the operating environment external to the second plurality of links,
wherein the first data used to determine the first spatial relationship further includes the second sensor data.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
38. The robotic system of claim 36, wherein:
the spatial information comprises an orientation or a position of the second manipulator assembly relative to the first manipulator assembly.
2. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein:
the spatial information about the operating environment external to the first plurality of links comprises an orientation or a position of the second manipulator assembly relative to the first manipulator assembly.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
39. The robotic system of claim 36, wherein:
the first sensor data comprises one or more images detected by the first plurality of sensors; or
the first sensor data includes data based on signals transmitted between the first plurality of sensors and a second plurality of sensors disposed on the second manipulator assembly.
3. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein:
the first sensor data comprises one or more images detected by the first plurality of sensors; or
wherein the first sensor data includes data based on signals transmitted between the first plurality of sensors and a second plurality of sensors disposed on the second manipulator assembly.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
40. The robotic system of claim 36, wherein the first plurality of sensors is disposed on the first manipulator assembly, wherein the second manipulator assembly is configured to support a second tool, the robotic system further comprising:
a second plurality of sensors disposed on the second manipulator assembly and not on the second tool;
wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
receive second sensor data from the second plurality of sensors, wherein the second sensor data provide spatial information about the operating environment external to the second manipulator assembly,
wherein the first data used to determine the first spatial relationship further comprises the second sensor data.
1. a first plurality of sensors disposed on the first manipulator assembly
4. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the second manipulator assembly is configured to support a second tool, the robotic system further comprising:
a second plurality of sensors disposed on the second manipulator assembly and not on the second tool;
wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
receive second sensor data from the second plurality of sensors, wherein the second sensor data provide spatial information about the operating environment external to the second plurality of links,
wherein the first data used to determine the first spatial relationship further includes the second sensor data.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
41. The robotic system of claim 36, wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
in response to the determination that the first data are insufficient to establish the first alignment relationship between the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly, perform an adjustment operation.
12. The robotic system of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
in response to a determination that the first data including the first sensor data are insufficient to establish the first alignment relationship, perform an adjustment operation.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
42. (New) The robotic system of claim 41, wherein the adjustment operation includes:
providing an indication for the operator to add a sensor intermediary into the operating environment.
13. The robotic system of claim 12, wherein the adjustment operation includes:
providing an indication for an operator to add a sensor intermediary into the operating environment.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
43. The robotic system of claim 41, wherein the adjustment operation includes:
providing an indication for the operator to move the first manipulator assembly or the second manipulator assembly.
14. The robotic system of claim 12, wherein the adjustment operation includes:
providing an indication for an operator to move the first manipulator assembly or the second manipulator assembly to increase a sufficiency of the data.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
44. (New) The robotic system of claim 41, wherein the adjustment operation includes automatically moving the first manipulator assembly or the second manipulator assembly.
16. The robotic system of claim 12, wherein the adjustment operation includes:
commanding motion of the first manipulator assembly or the second manipulator assembly to increase a sufficiency of the data.
Instant Application
19/249,905
Reference US Patent
US 12,370,688 B2
45. (New) The robotic system of claim 36, wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
make the determination that the first data are insufficient by determining that the first plurality of sensors is occluded from detecting the second manipulator assembly.
15. The robotic system of claim 12, wherein the processing unit is further configured to:
make the determination that the data are insufficient by determining that the first plurality of sensors are occluded from detecting the second manipulator assembly.
Regarding instant independent claims 46 and 53, the examiner notes that these are variations of claim 36 presented above pertaining to the statutory category of note. Instant claim 46 recites a method, corresponding to the method of claim 19 and claim 23 (for example) of the reference US Patent. Instant claim 53 recites a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium apparatus claim, corresponding to the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium apparatus claim 25 and claim 26 (for example) of the reference US Patent. Variations as noted above are merely broader forms of the combination of the independent claims alongside dependent claims recited in the reference US Patent, as recited above in the rejection of claim 36, for instance.
Similarly, the following relationships are drawn between the claims of the instant application and the reference US Patent:
Instant claim 47 is analogous to instant claim 38 but pertains to a method, and is rejected under analogous rationale as that provided above.
Instant claim 48 is analogous to instant claim 37 but pertains to a method, and is rejected under analogous rationale as that provided above.
Instant claim 49 is analogous to instant claim 41 but pertains to a method, and is analogous to claim 23 of the reference US Patent, and is rejected under analogous rationale as that provided above.
Instant claim 50 is analogous to instant claims 42 and 43 but pertains to a method, and is rejected under analogous rationale as that provided above.
Instant claim 51 is analogous to instant claim 44 but pertains to a method, and is rejected under analogous rationale as that provided above.
Instant claim 52 is analogous to instant claim 45 but pertains to a method, and is analogous to claim 24 of the reference US Patent, and is rejected under analogous rationale as that provided above.
Instant claim 54 is analogous to instant claim 41 but pertains to an apparatus, and is analogous to claim 26 of the reference US Patent, and is rejected under analogous rationale as that provided above.
Instant claim 55 is analogous to instant claim 44 but pertains to a method, and is rejected under analogous rationale as that provided above.
Therefore, instant claims 36-55 are rejected under Non-Statutory Double Patenting for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 36, 38-39, and 41-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing in the relevant art that the inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, the instant application claims a broader form of invention compared to parent application 17/913,665 (now US Patent US 12370688 B2) by not limiting the number and location of environmental sensors. To summarize the below argument, applicant is now claiming the genus of any arrangement and location of sensors, whereas the instant specification only provides the species of sensors located on the robot arms. Support for the claim to the genus of any arrangement and location of sensors is not provided.
Independent claims 36, 46, and 53 claim to receive “first data comprising first sensor data from a first plurality of sensors”. While claims 37 and 40 provide the narrower arrangement of sensors that reflects the specification disclosure, as the dependent claims are further limiting (for proper dependency), the parent independent claims are then examined more broadly compared to the dependent claims, leading the examiner to understand that the location/arrangement of the sensors is not particularly limited in the independent claims. However, in determining if proper support in the specification exists to claim any arrangement of sensors, the examiner consulted the specification and found that the specification does not appear to discuss a representative sample of alternatives. For instance:
Paragraph [0009] states “A processing unit is configured to receive first sensor data from a first plurality of sensors disposed on the first manipulator assembly”.
Paragraph [0010] states “Consistent with other embodiments, a method of operating a robotic system, includes receiving first sensor data from a first plurality of sensors disposed on a first manipulator assembly in an operating environment.”
Paragraph [0015] points a person having ordinary skill in the art to the sensor system in Figure [2], showing only sensors located on the manipulator, consistent with the description of Paragraph [0039] which states “In the example of FIG. 2, an external environment detection sensor system 304 (also referred to as external environment sensor system 304 or sensor system 304) is attached to the manipulator assembly 300.” and “In various examples, sensors of the external environment detection sensor system 304 maybe located at one or more of the links (L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, or L5) and joints (J1, J2, J3, J4, or J5) of the manipulator assembly 300. In some examples where the manipulator assembly 300 includes a clamp, the sensor(s) of the manipulator assembly may be coupled to the clamp.”
Paragraph [0042] states “In some examples, a single link or joint may have multiple sensors of the external environment detection sensor system 304. Note that while in FIG. 2, an external environment detection sensor system 304 is attached to each link (or a tool rigidly mounted to the link) and each joint of a manipulator 302, in some embodiments, the manipulator 302 may include links and/or joints that do not have any external environment detection sensor system attached thereon.”
Paragraph [0043] states “In that example, those external environment detection sensor system 304 attached to the manipulator 302”.
Paragraph [0046] states “Such sensor data may be provided by one or more external environment detection sensor systems on the corresponding manipulator assemblies”.
Paragraph [0047] states “…including first sensor data from a plurality of sensors on the first manipulator assembly…”.
Figures [4A-4F] embody alternatives of the sensor setup and each option shown has the sensors exclusively located on a manipulator.
Paragraph [0055] states “because of the redundant sensors on each manipulator assembly”.
Paragraph [0056] states “The external environment sensor system 304 of the manipulator assembly 402 includes sensors 304-1 and 304-2.”, showing that the sensors are on the manipulator.
While the above only serve as a small number of references to prove the examiner’s assertion, the examiner reviewed the specification and was unable to locate a representative sample of alternative species other than the sensors located on the arms.
Per MPEP 2163.II.3.(a).ii) (Original Claims drawn to a genus), “The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A) above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B) above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C) above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. See Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 10 F.4th 1330, 1337, 2021 USPQ2d 893 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ( "[T]he written description must lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand that the inventor possessed the entire scope of the claimed invention. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.' (internal quotation marks omitted).").” Again, applicant only describes sensors located on the manipulators without a representative number of alternatives and reasonably claimed as such in the independent claims of the parent application 17/913,665; per the MPEP section noted above “If a representative number of adequately described species are not disclosed for a genus, the claim to that genus must be rejected as lacking adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.”
The examiner has determined that the instant application lacks sufficient written description to claim an unlimited layout/arrangement of sensors, and as the position of the sensors on the manipulators is integral to the inventive concept (registering manipulators to each other while in view of each other), broadening the claims in this regard is improper as the specification lacks sufficient written description to convey to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing that the inventors had possession of such a system.
All pending independent claims (36, 46, and 53) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and all dependent claims other than claims 37 and 40 (as they resolve the noted lack of sufficient disclosure, further clarified below) are rejected by dependency.
Dependent claims 37 and 40 remedy the noted issue by limiting the first plurality of sensors and second plurality of sensors to the species with specification support and are therefore not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), but are merely objected to in this fashion for depending upon a rejected base claim.
While claim 48 recites that the second plurality of sensors are disposed on the second manipulator, the first plurality of sensors are not limited as such, and thus claim 48 does not entirely remedy the noted issue for independent claim 46.
Thus, claims 36, 38-39, and 41-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Prior Art Rejections Not Being Made
Claims 36-55 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. Claims 36, 38-39, and 41-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, claims 36-55 are not being rejected by prior art.
The following is an examiner’s reasoning for why there are no prior art rejections:
The examiner performed an updated search and was unable to locate prior art which reasonably read on the inventive concept, particularly pertaining to sufficiency of data. The prior art of record does not disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed invention. Using claim 36 as an example (though analogous rationale applies to claims 46 and 53), the following underlined portions delineate the instant claims from the prior art of record:
36. (New) A robotic system comprising:
a first manipulator assembly having a first base;
a second manipulator assembly having a second base, the second base separately movable relative to the first base,
wherein the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly are in an operating environment; and
a processing unit including one or more processors, the processing unit configured to:
receive first data comprising first sensor data from a first plurality of sensors, wherein the first sensor data provide spatial information about the operating environment external to the first manipulator assembly;
in response to a determination that the first data are insufficient to establish a first alignment relationship between the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly:
facilitate receipt of additional data, the additional data providing additional spatial information about the operating environment external to the first manipulator assembly,
determine a first spatial relationship of the second manipulator assembly relative to the first manipulator assembly using at least the first data and the additional data, and
establish the first alignment relationship between the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly based on the first spatial relationship; and
command, based on the first alignment relationship, motion of the second manipulator assembly in response to a command from a first input device operable by an operator.
Regarding prior art of record (for comparison purposes), the examiner notes that applicant has provided an IDS dated 29 July 2025 which captures the art noted by the examiner in the parent case (17/913,665) as being particularly relevant and a summary of the most notable art is found below.
When compared to prior art of record, simply determining that a collision object is present does not reasonably constitute "in response to a determination that the first data are insufficient to establish a first alignment relationship between the first manipulator assembly and the second manipulator assembly" (per claim 36, though analogous rationale applies to the independent claims 46 and 53). In Liu et al. (US 2020/0367977 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter Liu), the purpose of the disclosure is to prevent collision between robots, so any detection within a safety zone/curtain would prompt movement/avoidance. In other words, the intent of Liu is to not have an alignment relationship between the cooperative robots. The inventive concept of the instant application is to have coordinated robot movement, meaning that the alignment relationship between manipulators is essential; it is then expected that there is a sufficiency of data to perform coordinated work. Tan et al. (US 2020/0094411 A1, prior art of record, hereinafter Tan) teaches in paragraphs [0120-0121] that cooperative control between mobile robot manipulators occurs with the use of additional components/robots as repeaters (implying a similar invention to the instant claims), but does not disclose any detail as to how the embodiment is meant to operate. Reading the detail of the independent claims of the instant application into the mere generic concept of Tan would require impermissible hindsight. Further, Tan could not reasonably be combined with Liu, as the disclosure of Liu prevents the alignment of robots, counter to the instant application and Tan. The examiner performed an updated search but was unable to locate art which reasonably (alone or in obvious combination) read upon the instant claims. The prior art of record does not disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed invention.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2020/0367977 A1
PROXIMITY SENSORS FOR SURGICAL
ROBOTIC ARM MANIPULATION
Liu et al.
Filed: 21 May 2019
Pub: 26 Nov 2020
Discusses a manipulator with a plurality of sensors disposed on the links used to establish a detection curtain.
2
US 2020/0094411 A1
CONTROL SYSTEM WITH TASK MANAGER
Tan et al.
Filed: 22 Nov 2019
Pub: 26 Mar 2020
Discusses cooperative use of robots with registration between them and use of robots as repeaters.
3
US 2016/0184032 A1
Configurable Robotic Surgical System with Virtual Rail and Flexible Endoscope
Romo et al.
Filed: 30 Sep 2015
Pub: 30 Jun 2016
Discusses registration of a second arm to a first arm.
4
US 2013/0123981 A1
Swarm Intelligence Routing Robot Device and Movement Path Control System using the Same
Lee et al.
Filed: 16 Oct. 2012
Pub: 16 May 2013
Discusses swarm control of master/slave AGVs wherein AGVs may act as repeaters to extend a communication range.
5
US 2021/0263533 A1
Mobile Object and Method for Controlling Mobile Object
Motoya-ma et al.
Filed: 07 Jun 2019
Pub: 26 Aug 2021
Discusses a master AGV performing relative control of a slave AGV through localization accomplished through imaging sensors.
6
US 2016/0023355 A1
Robot System Control Method and Robot System
Komatsu et al.
Filed: 17 Mar 2014
Pub: 28 Jan 2016
Discusses master/slave robot cooperation using relative coordinates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights