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 Objections
Claims 3-4, and 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 3 and 4, the limitation “the motor offset” lacks antecedent basis
As per claim 12, the use of parentheses in claims should be avoided, apart from the well-established use with reference signs or their standard uses in the relevant technology. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 4 and 5, it is unclear what model is being updated as there has not been a previous recitation of any model. In the interest of compact prosecution updating the model will be interpreted as updating any model, calculation, or algorithm or tracking any parameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Penny (US 2020/0237191).
As per claim 1, Penny discloses a surgical robotic system comprising:
a robotic joint of a robotic arm (joint 306);
a first motor (driving motor 308);
a second motor (following motor 310);
a cable coupled to the first motor and the second motor and operationally coupled to the robotic joint to control a position of the robotic joint (tendon 302, 304);
a memory storing one or more instructions (memory 318);
a processor (processor 316) configured to or programmed to read the one or more instructions stored in the memory, the processor configured to:
execute the one or more instructions in the memory to adjust the first motor and/or the second motor to remove an unacceptable amount of slack in the cable (see at least para. 54 and 68 for controlling driving motor and following motor to prevent unnecessary slack).
As per claim 2, Penny further teaches wherein executing the one or more instructions in the memory to adjust the first motor and the second motor to remove the unacceptable amount of slack in the cable comprises:
executing a position-limiting scheme; executing a parallel control scheme; or executing a hybrid control scheme (see at least para. 51-54 for a position control scheme of operating both the driving motor 308 and following motor 310 wherein a scaled extent of a current position of the driving motor is sent to the following motor instead of said reference position such that the motor shaft of the driving motor revolves more than the rotating shaft of the following motor).
As per claim 3, Penny further teaches wherein executing the one or more instructions in the memory to adjust the first motor and the second motor to remove the unacceptable amount of slack in the cable further comprises adjusting a motor angle associated with the first motor or the second motor based at least in part on the motor offset (see at least para. 51-53 for control parameter that motor needs to execute becomes a reference position expressed in terms of encoder count of an encoder that measures the operation of the motor, which is equivalent to a motor angle, and a scaled extent of a current position of the driving motor is sent to the following motor instead of said reference position, which is equivalent to the motor offset).
As per claim 4, Penny further teaches wherein executing the one or more instructions in the memory to adjust the first motor and the second motor to remove the unacceptable amount of slack in the cable further comprises adaptively to update the model in real time based at least in part on the motor offset (see at least para. 58 for the driving motor and following motor are synchronized such that the travel is equal and therefore the scaling factor is at unity).
As per claim 6, Penny further teaches wherein the hybrid control scheme accounts for cable lengthening over time based at least in part on a mapping from joint to motor space that is updated over time (the limitations of the claim are satisfied as claim 4 only requires executing one of three alternative schemes and the instant claim is directed to a non-elected scheme).
As per claim 8, Penny further teaches wherein the control scheme is a position-limiting scheme, wherein executing the control scheme comprises: determining a desired joint angle associated with the first motor and the second motor; and adjusting the angle of the first motor and the second motor to drive the robotic joint to reach the respective desired joint angle (see at least para. 51-54 for a position control scheme of operating both the driving motor 308 and following motor 310 wherein a scaled extent of a current position of the driving motor is sent to the following motor instead of said reference position such that the motor shaft of the driving motor revolves more than the rotating shaft of the following motor).
As per claim 12, Penny further teaches wherein executing the one or more instructions in the memory to adjust the first motor and the second motor to remove the unacceptable amount of slack in the cable further comprises executing a robotic joint control algorithm that includes a slack avoidance algorithm that allows for a controlled amount of slack (positive or negative) for motors in position control or impedance control (see at least para. 59-60 and Fig. A for the traveling of the driving motor and following motor are equal resulting in a unity scaling factor which may allow for a small amount of slack but not enough to allow the tendon to hop).
As per claim 13, Penny further teaches wherein executing the one or more instructions in the memory to adjust the first motor and the second motor to remove the unacceptable amount of slack in the cable further comprises performing an adaptive slack avoidance that adjusts the slack avoidance algorithm's parameters based on sensor data and associated metadata (see at least para. 45 for encoder monitors the operation of the motor).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penny in view of Wells (US 2023/0320795).
As per claim 5, Wells (US 2023/0320795) teaches wherein executing the one or more instructions in the memory to adjust the first motor and the second motor to remove the unacceptable amount of slack in the cable further comprises updating the model over time based at least in part on incoming cable tension and/or cable stretch (see at least para. 119, 123, and 126 for using position error as input to non-linear model of the cables for overcoming nonlinearities such as cable stretch).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Penny with the features of Wells because it allows for compensation of and overcoming nonlinearities backlash, cable stretch, stiction, and changes in length of the cable path due to bending.
As per claim 14, Wells further comprising one or more additional motors, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions in the memory to adjust the one or more additional motors to remove the unacceptable amount of slack in one or more cables (see at least para. 112 for controlling motors 152a-d to maintain minimum tension on cables 380a-d).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Penny with the additional motors and cables of Wells because duplication of the essential working sparts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penny in view of Sen (US 2022/0061934) in view of Khalifa (US 2022/0378528).
As per claim 7, Penny is silent regarding wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a control scheme selection input; and execute a control scheme.
Sen teaches a plurality of control modes (see at least para. 44 and 53)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Penny with the features of Sen because it provides for a plurality of control modes for maintaining tension using different methods which provides for diversity and flexibility.
Khalifa provides a control mode selection input (see at least para. 113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Penny with the features of Khalifa because it provides operator-selected control modes such that the operator controls, and is cognizant of, the active control mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closets prior art is regarded to be US 2023/0320795 which also teaches running a torque controller in parallel with a position controller but is silent regarding a feedforward control loop or feedforward response time as claimed. Additionally, while some of the prior art teaches different control modes none of them teach or suggest different motors in different control modes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights