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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025, 11/12/2025, and 04/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
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 21-34 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 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 21 recites the limitation “and initiate a corrective action in response to the detected failure” however a corrective action is not mentioned in either the specification or the drawings in a manner that would provide support. For example, in Fig. 8, the output step when a difference is determined either outputs an error or stops operation. While stopping operation may be a corrective step, there is no support in the application to identify what would be a corrective step, or what may be included in a corrective step. Instead, specification paragraph [0040] only mentions the ability to stop transmitting movement commands when a limit or threshold is met, while paragraph [0055] further states that error limits are used to determine if the error is sufficient to issue an alarm or stop operation. As these steps are not identified to be associated with a corrective action, nor is there any present indication what a corrective action would be the claims are rejected.
Examiner suggests amending the claims to better fit the specification. For example, specification paragraph [0043] discloses certain precautionary actions, such as slowing or terminating the movement, or reversing the movement for a determined distance which appears to function as the intended corrective action.
Additionally, Examiner notes that there does not appear to be support for generating a failure alert as required by claim 22 and claim 29. The specification details the ability to determine a failure based on observations and sensor readings (see at least [0060]) and the ability to output an error to the main controller (see [0009] and Fig. 8) but fails to disclose generating an actual alert, or what an alert may entail. Examiner suggests amending the claim language to include language related to outputting an error, such as outputting an error on a display as opposed to generating an alert, or further demonstrating where the support for the limitation may be found in the application. Examiner is happy to further discuss potential amendments should further clarification be required.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 23-24, 27-28, 30-31, and 34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 14-15, and 17 of Patent Tobergte 998 (US Patent No. No. 12,369,998 B2 hereinafter “Tobergte 998”).
Regarding claim 21 Tobergte 998 discloses:
19281956 Clm 21
Tobergte 998 clm 1
A surgical robotic system comprising: a robotic arm including: a joint;
A surgical robotic system comprising: a robotic arm including at least one joint
a motor configured to move the joint;
at least one joint having a motor;
a torque sensor configured to measure torque associated with the joint or the motor;
a joint torque sensor configured to measure joint torque of the at least one joint, a motor torque sensor configured to measure motor torque;
and a velocity sensor configured to measure velocity of the motor;
an encoder configured to measure motor velocity;
and a controller configured to: output a drive command to the motor to actuate the motor;
and a main controller configured to output a drive command to the motor
receive a measured velocity from the velocity sensor and a measured torque from the torque sensor;
a safety observer configured to: receive a measured velocity of the motor from the encoder; calculate an observed velocity of the motor based on the joint torque and the motor torque;
calculate an estimated velocity of the motor based on the measured torque and the drive command;
calculate an observed velocity of the motor based on the joint torque and the motor torque;
detect a failure in operation of the joint based on a velocity difference between the calculated estimated velocity and the measured velocity;
and detect a failure in operation of the at least one joint based on a velocity difference between the calculated observed velocity and the measured velocity;
and initiate a corrective action in response to the detected failure.
and a main controller configured to output a drive command to the motor to actuate the motor and to stop the motor in response to detection of the failure.
Regarding claim 23 Tobergte 998 discloses:
19281956 Clm 23
Tobergte 998 clm 1
The surgical robotic system according to claim 21, wherein the torque sensor is a motor torque sensor configured to measure torque of the motor.
… a motor torque sensor configured to measure motor torque;
Regarding claim 24 Tobergte 998 discloses:
19281956 Clm 24
Tobergte 998 clm 1
The surgical robotic system according to claim 21, wherein the torque sensor is a joint torque sensor configured to measure torque of the joint.
… a joint torque sensor configured to measure joint torque of the at least one joint;
Regarding claim 27 Tobergte 998 discloses:
19281956 Clm 27
Tobergte 998 clm 3, 4,
The surgical robotic system according to claim 21, wherein the controller is further configured to detect the failure by: comparing the velocity difference to a velocity error range;
wherein the safety observer is further configured to: compare the velocity difference to a velocity error range (clm 3)
and detecting the failure in response to the velocity difference being outside the velocity error range.
wherein the safety observer is further configured to detect the failure in response to the velocity difference being outside the velocity error range (clm 4)
Regarding claim 28 Tobergte 998 discloses:
19281956 Clm 28
Tobergte 998 clm 14
A method for controlling a surgical robotic system, the method comprising: outputting, by a controller, a drive command to a motor configured to move a joint of a robotic arm to actuate the motor;
A method for controlling a surgical robot, the method comprising: outputting a drive command at a main controller to a motor of at least one joint of a robotic arm to actuate the motor;
measuring, using a torque sensor, torque associated with the joint or the motor;
measuring motor torque of the motor using at least one motor sensor;
measuring, using a velocity sensor, velocity of the motor;
measuring velocity of the motor using a velocity sensor;
receiving, at the controller, a measured velocity from the velocity sensor and a measured torque from the torque sensor;
receiving at a safety observer a measured velocity from the velocity sensor;
calculating, by the controller, an estimated velocity of the motor based on the measured torque and the drive command;
calculating at the safety observer an observed velocity;
detecting, by the controller, a failure in operation of the joint based on a velocity difference between the calculated estimated velocity and the measured velocity;
detecting at the safety observer a failure in operation of the at least one joint based on a velocity difference between the calculated observed velocity and the measured velocity;
and initiating, by the controller, a corrective action in response to the detected failure.
and stopping the motor in response to detection of the failure.
Regarding claim 30 Tobergte 998 discloses:
19281956 Clm 30
Tobergte 998 clm 14
The method according to claim 28, wherein the torque sensor is a motor torque sensor configured to measure torque of the motor.
… measuring motor torque of the motor using at least one motor sensor;
Regarding claim 31 Tobergte 998 discloses:
19281956 Clm 31
Tobergte 998 clm 15
The method according to claim 28, wherein the torque sensor is a joint torque sensor configured to measure torque of the joint.
The method according to claim 14, further comprising: measuring joint torque of the at least one joint at a joint torque sensor.
Regarding claim 34 Tobergte 998 discloses:
19281956 Clm 34
Tobergte 998 clm 17
The method according to claim 28, wherein detecting the failure further includes: comparing, at the controller, the velocity difference to a velocity error range;
The method according to claim 16, further comprising: comparing the velocity difference to a velocity error range;
And detecting, at the controller, the failure in response to the velocity difference being outside the velocity error range.
and detecting the failure in response to the velocity difference being outside the velocity error range.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0169864 A1 discloses an open or closed loop control robotic joint driven by an electric motor detecting operating currents and driver controls to reach a predetermined target control state while avoiding faults with a fault detector
US 2020/0405403 A1 discloses a modular robotic assembly with interchangeable parts
US 2017/0007336 A1 discloses a medical support arm with linked joints to drive the arm unit based on certain restrictions while avoiding malfunctions
US 2023/0063521 A1 discloses a computerized surgical tool with operating parameters to control the surgical tool
US 2019/0000447 A1 discloses a robotic surgical control system with actual closure forces compared to a threshold, allowing control when the threshold is not met
US 2024/0278428 A1 discloses a robot with multiple joints to reduce speeds based on the predetermined reduction ratio, and determining in the speed reduction system has any faults
US 2019/0091861 A1 discloses a patent side controller predicting configurations and values of the torque sensors and encoder to determine if the system encounters trouble
CN 111772794 A discloses a minimally invasive surgery robot based on the motion or force of the surgeon applied to the robot
US 7,453,227 B2 discloses a medical robotic system using a slave manipulator and master manipulator controlled by the user for slide motion controls
US 11,173,597 discloses a robotic manipulator with multiple links controlling the manipulator based on joint state estimations
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights