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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 7, the limitation, “wherein the table is physically separate from the table” makes np grammatical sense. There is no antecedent basis for the table being mentioned twice.
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 1- 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Itkowitz , U.S. Patent No. 11672618. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses a computer-assisted device (claims 1, 12, 18) comprising:
an articulated arm comprising a plurality of joints including a first joint and a second joint, the articulated arm configured to be coupled to an imaging device (claims 1, 2, 12, 18); and
a control unit comprising one or more hardware processors configured to, when coupled to the articulated arm and a table (claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 18):
determine a virtual coordinate frame based on a pose of the imaging device before the first joint is set to a floating mode (claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 18),
configure the first joint to the floating mode (claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 18),
detect movement of the first joint (claims 1, 12, 18),
determine movement of the table based on motion data received from the table (claims 1, 12, 18),
transform the determined movement of the table to the virtual coordinate frame (claims 1, 12, 18),
and
drive the second joint based on the movement of the first joint and the determined movement of the table in the virtual coordinate frame (claims 1, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 2, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the virtual coordinate frame is detached from the imaging device (claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 3, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to maintain the virtual coordinate frame in fixed relationship to a top of the table based on the motion data received from the table (claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 4, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to move the imaging device to maintain a relative distance and a relative orientation between a top of the table and the imaging device based on the motion data received from the table (1, 2 ,4, 18, 20).
Regarding claim 5, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to realign the virtual coordinate frame with the imaging device (claims 1, 2, 3, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 6, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to reset a position of the virtual coordinate frame to an actual position of the imaging device (claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 7 Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the table is physically separate from the table (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 8, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein to drive the second joint based on the movement of the movement of the first joint and the determined movement of the table in the virtual coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 18), the control unit is configured to:
transform the movement of the table in a table coordinate frame into a motion in a first coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 18), the first coordinate frame being selected from the group consisting of:
a remote center of motion coordinate frame and an imaging device coordinate frame and drive the second joint to move in relation to the motion in the first coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 9, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the articulated arm further comprises:
a plurality of links coupled by the plurality of joints (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 18); and
a plurality of actuators coupled to drive motion of the articulated arm (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 18);
wherein to drive the second joint, the control unit is configured to control movement of the second joint using at least one actuator from the plurality of actuators (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 10, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, wherein the movement of the first joint is caused by a movement of a patient into which an end effector is inserted, the patient being located on the table, and the movement of the patient being due to the movement of the table (claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 12, 18).
Regarding claim 11, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the computer-assisted device of claim 1, further comprising:
a second articulated arm comprising at least a third joint, the second articulated arm configured to support an instrument having an end effector (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
wherein the control unit is further configured to:
receive, from an input control configured to be manipulated by a user, an instrument motion command to move the end effector while the table is moving (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18); and
drive the third joint to move the end effector relative to the virtual coordinate frame based on the instrument motion command (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 12, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses a method for controlling a computer-assisted device, the method comprising:
determining, by a control unit comprising one or more hardware processors, a virtual coordinate frame based on a pose of an imaging device before a first joint is set to a floating mode, the imaging device configured to be supported by an articulated arm of the computer assisted device, the articulated arm comprising a plurality of joints including the first joint and a second joint (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
configuring, by the control unit, the first joint to the floating mode (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
detecting, by the control unit, movement of the first joint (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
determining, by the control unit, movement of a table based on motion data received from the table, the table coupled to the control unit (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
transforming, by the control unit, the determined movement of the table to the virtual coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18); and
driving, by the control unit, the second joint based on the movement of the first joint and the determined movement of the table in the virtual coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 13, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the virtual coordinate frame is detached from the imaging device (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 14, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
maintaining, by the control unit, the virtual coordinate frame in fixed relationship to a top of the table based on the motion data received from the table (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 15, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising:
moving, by the control unit, the imaging device to maintain a relative distance and a relative orientation between a top of the table and the imaging device based on the motion data received from the table (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 16, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the table is physically separate from the table (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 17, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the method of claim 12, wherein driving the second joint based on the movement of the movement of the first joint (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18) and the determined movement of the table in the virtual coordinate frame comprises:
transforming the movement of the table in a table coordinate frame into a motion in a first coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18), the first coordinate frame being selected from the group consisting of:
a remote center of motion coordinate frame and an imaging device coordinate frame and driving the second joint to move in relation to the motion in the first coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 18, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising a plurality of machine-readable instructions which when executed by one or more hardware processors associated with a computer-assisted device are adapted to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising:
determining a virtual coordinate frame based on a pose of an imaging device before a first joint is set to a floating mode, the imaging device configured to be supported by an articulated arm of the computer-assisted device, the articulated arm comprising a plurality of joints including the first joint and a second joint (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
configuring the first joint to the floating mode (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
detecting movement of the first joint (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
determining movement of a table based on motion data received from the table, the table coupled to the one or more hardware processors (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18);
transforming the determined movement of the table to the virtual coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18); and
driving the second joint based on the movement of the first joint and the determined movement of the table in the virtual coordinate frame (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 19, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the method further comprises:
maintaining the virtual coordinate frame in fixed relationship to a top of the table based on the motion data received from the table (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Regarding claim 20, Itkowitz (11672618) discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the method further comprises:
moving the imaging device to maintain a relative distance and a relative orientation between a top of the table and the imaging device based on the motion data received from the table (claims 1, 2, 3, 8-12, 18).
Conclusion
The prior art, US 20200107897 made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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 at 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights