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 filed March 23, 2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, English Translations of ISR and Written opinions of ISA for PCT/CN2021/131894 were not provided in the filing.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “an” should be changed to –a—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 2, Line 4).
The phrase “the next desired massage trajectory” should be changed to – the next desired massage track—for consistency (Claim 2, Line 7).
The phrase “a joint angle of one or more joints” should be changed to –the joint angle of the one or more joints—for consistency (Claim 5, Lines 2-3).
The phrase “an” should be changed to –a—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 9, Line 4).
The phrase “the next desired massage trajectory” should be changed to – the next desired massage track—for consistency (Claim 9, Line 7).
The beginning of Claim 14 should be moved to a separate line to separate the ends of Claims 13 and 14 (Claim 14, Line 1).
The phrase “an” should be changed to –a—to correct the grammatical error (Claim 16, Line 5).
The phrase “the next desired massage trajectory” should be changed to – the next desired massage track—for consistency (Claim 16, Line 8).
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 and 8-20 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.
Claim 4 states “detecting a current data communication link between each controlled component and each detection component” and “detected the data communication links between each controlled component and each detection component” (Lines 4-5 and 8-9). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear how many data communication links are there and how many controlled components and detection components are there. It appears the applicant was trying to say there is at least one data communication link, at least one controlled component, and at least one detection component. However, the claim does not previously establish the number of data communication links, controlled components, or detection components. It is implied that there is at least one of each, but the claim later implies that there must be at least two data communication links with two controlled components and two detection components for each data communication link. Therefore, the number of components being positively claimed cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as there is at least one data communication link, at least one controlled component, and at least one detection component. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 11 (Lines 3-8).
Claim 8 states “the massage robot” (Line 7). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say “a massage robot”. However, since this is the first time this is mentioned, it is unclear what it is referring back to. Therefore, the identity of the term cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “a massage robot”. Similar rejections are applied to Claim 15 (Line 3).
Claim 14 states “The robot controller of claim 1” (Line 1). This statement is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim is accurately dependent on Claim 1 due to the preamble of the claim being different from Claim 1 which is a method claim. It appears the applicant was trying to say Claim 14 is dependent on Claim 8. However, Claim 1 is a method claim and Claim 14 is drawn to an apparatus based on its preamble. Thus, it is unclear if Claim 14 is dependent on Claim 1 or a different claim. Therefore, the dependency of Claim 14 cannot be determined. For examination purposes, the claim limitation will be interpreted as Claim 14 is dependent on Claim 8.
Claims 9-10, 12, 13, and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent on rejected Claims 11 and 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 discusses a computer-implemented massage motion control method for a massage robot, comprising: obtaining a desired massage trajectory, a speed compensation amount of a desired massage intensity, and an angular speed compensation amount adapted to a curvature of the target massage area; calculating a robot end desired speed and a robot end desired angular speed based on the desired massage trajectory; obtaining a to-be-outputted end speed by performing a speed compensation on the robot end desired speed; obtaining a to-be-outputted end angular speed by performing an angular speed compensation on the robot end desired angular speed according to the angular speed compensation amount; calculating a to-be-outputted joint angle based on the end speed and end angular speed; and controlling the massage robot to perform a massage motion by adjusting a joint angle according to the to-be-outputted joint angle.
Claims 8 and 15 discuss similar limitations to Claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 contain allowable subject matter due to their dependencies on Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Prior art similar to the claimed invention are explained below.
Litman et al. (US 2022/0134551 A1) discusses a system, method, and apparatus for generating a dynamic, autonomous, therapeutic massage plan. Regarding Claim 1, Litman utilizes force/torque sensors to measure downforce used to apply tissue treatment and measure sideloads generated by friction (Litman: paragraph 0062). Litman also discusses mapping techniques to map out a 3D body (Litman: paragraph 0102). Though the instant invention utilizes similar sensors (Specification: paragraph 0046), Litman uses a completely different technique to figure out the trajectory of the massaging arms. The instant invention is focused on the angular speed and speed of the end effector of the robot arms and compensating for these speeds to provide a desired massage pressure and desired massage trajectory. Litman does not explicitly consider the angular speed and speed of the end effector or does not do any form of compensation through the angular speed and speed. Litman is more focused on minimizing joint rotational velocity or joint torque in general. Litman is also focused on the abilities of the robot arms themselves and its ability to plan a massage plan rather than the mathematical calculations, formulas, or algorithms involved in its operation. Other prior art do not explicitly discuss angular speed and speed compensation in the context of robotic massaging which requires the considerations of both massage intensity and massage trajectory. Additionally, the discussions of angular speed and speed compensation are only applicable to robotic arms with multiple joints, and thus it is non-obvious to utilize other forms of robots to perform the same functions being claimed.
Similar arguments are applied to Claims 8 and 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for art cited of interest including:
US 20200121556 A1 discusses a massaging device that utilizes 3D images of the human subject.
US 20210154852 A1 discusses a device for managing movements of a robot to treat a surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN THAI-BINH KHONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 am-6:00 pm.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/BRIAN T KHONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights