DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination received 30 August 2024 is acknowledged. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 amended 30 August 2024 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 30 August 2024 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because “both” in line 8 of Claim 1 lacks underlining, but claim 1 as per the 19 June 2024 amendments does not recite “both” in line 8. As a reminder, amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
…
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
…
Since the reply filed on 30 August 2024 appears to be bona fide and the scope of the claims can be determined, Claims 1-2 and 4-7 have been considered as follows.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakatani (US Pub. No. 2014/0230581).
As per Claim 6, Nakatani discloses a force detection apparatus (150) (Figs. 18, 28-29; ¶185-191, 274-30) comprising:
first and second force sensors (111, 112) each including a force detection device (as per “strain gauge-type load cells” in ¶298) having a force detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction, the Y-axis direction” in ¶299) (Fig. 29; ¶297-299);
a first inertial sensor (141) disposed in a vicinity of the first force sensor (111) and having an inertia detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction” in ¶302) extending along the force detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction” in ¶299) of the first force sensor (111) (Fig. 29; ¶297-302); and
a second inertial sensor (142) disposed in a vicinity of the second force sensor (112) and having an inertia detection axis (as per “the Y-axis direction” in ¶302) extending along the force detection axis (as per “the Y-axis direction” in ¶299) of the second force sensor (112) (Fig. 29; ¶297-302),
wherein the first and second inertial sensors (141, 142) are each a sensor (as per “strain-gauge type load cells” in ¶302) that detects acceleration (as per “the first acceleration sensor 141 detect … acceleration … in the Z-axis direction” and “the second acceleration sensor 142 detect … acceleration … in the Y-axis direction” in ¶307) in a directions along the inertial detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction, the Y-axis direction” in ¶302) (Fig. 29; ¶297-307), {a sensor that detects angular velocity around the inertial detection axis}, or {a sensor that detects both the acceleration and the angular velocity},
wherein the force detection apparatus (150) further comprising a force detection circuit (40) that calculates a first force (as per output of subtractor 43 for Z-axis) resulting from removal of an inertia component (as per signal from 4B/141) from a force (as per signal from 1B/111) received by the first force sensor (111) based on a result of detection performed by the first inertial sensor (141), calculates a second force (as per output of subtractor 43 for Y-axis) resulting from removal of an inertia component (as per signal from 4B/142) from a force (as per signal from 1B/112) received by the second force sensor (112) based on a result of detection performed by the second inertial sensor (142), and calculates a received external force (as per output of subtractor 43 for Z-axis and Y-axis) based on the first force (as per signal from 1B/111) and the second force (as per signal from 1B/112) (Figs. 2-5, 28-29; ¶103-117, 274-310).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani (US Pub. No. 2014/0230581) in view of Furuhata (US Pub. No. 2019/0101395).
As per Claim 1, Nakatani discloses a force detection apparatus (150) (Figs. 18, 28-29; ¶185-191, 274-30) comprising:
first and second force sensors (111, 112) each including a force detection device (as per “strain gauge-type load cells” in ¶298) having a force detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction, the Y-axis direction” in ¶299) (Fig. 29; ¶297-299);
a first inertial sensor (141) disposed in a vicinity of the first force sensor (111) and having an inertia detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction” in ¶302) extending along the force detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction” in ¶299) of the first force sensor (111) (Fig. 29; ¶297-302); and
a second inertial sensor (142) disposed in a vicinity of the second force sensor (112) and having an inertia detection axis (as per “the Y-axis direction” in ¶302) extending along the force detection axis (as per “the Y-axis direction” in ¶299) of the second force sensor (112) (Fig. 29; ¶297-302),
wherein the first and second inertial sensors (141, 142) are each a sensor (as per “strain-gauge type load cells” in ¶302) that detects acceleration (as per “the first acceleration sensor 141 detect … acceleration … in the Z-axis direction” and “the second acceleration sensor 142 detect … acceleration … in the Y-axis direction” in ¶307) in a directions along the inertial detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction, the Y-axis direction” in ¶302) (Fig. 29; ¶297-307).
Nakatani further discloses wherein cost is a design consideration (¶310). Nakatani does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second inertial sensors detect angular velocity around the inertial detection axis.
Furuhata discloses an inertia measurement device (2000, 3100) that includes a physical quantity sensor (1) (Figs. 1, 9-11; ¶51, 119-132). The inertial measurement device (3100) includes a tri-axis acceleration sensor (3110) and a tri-axis angular velocity sensor (3120) (Fig. 11; ¶129-132). In one embodiment, the inertial measurement device (2000, 3100) is applied in an automobile (¶131). In another embodiment, the inertial measurement device (2000, 3100) is applied in a robot (¶121). Like Nakatani, Furuhata is concerned with sensor systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nakatani and Furuhata, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Furuhata to the system Nakatani since doing so would enhance the system by reducing the cost of the system in the event that suitable inertial sensors as per Furuhata were cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed embodiments for the inertial sensors as per Nakatani.
As per Claim 2, the combination of Nakatani and Furuhata teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nakatani further discloses:
wherein a separation distance (as per “The first acceleration sensor 141 is secured to a cantilever inside the hollowed-out part 111a of the first force sensor 111” in ¶306) between the first inertial sensor (141) and the first force sensor (111) is smaller than a separation distance (as per “a first connection member 161 is coupled to the free end of the first force sensor 111” in ¶300 and “the second force sensor 112 is coupled to the first connection member 161” in ¶301) between the first inertial sensor (141) and the second force sensor (112) (Fig. 29; ¶297-302), and
a separation distance (as per “The second acceleration sensor 142 is secured to a cantilever inside the hollowed-out part 112a of the second force sensor 112” in ¶306) between the second inertial sensor (142) and the second force sensor (112) is smaller than a separation distance (as per “a first connection member 161 is coupled to the free end of the first force sensor 111” in ¶300 and “the second force sensor 112 is coupled to the first connection member 161” in ¶301) between the second inertial sensor (142) and the first force sensor (111) (Fig. 29; ¶297-302).
As per Claim 4, the combination of Nakatani and Furuhata teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nakatani further discloses wherein the force detection axes (as per “the Z-axis direction, the Y-axis direction” in ¶299) of the first and second force sensors (111, 112) intersect with each other (as per Z and Y axes indicated at rotational axis CB in Fig. 29).
As per Claim 7, Nakatani discloses a robot system (Figs. 6-7, 18, 28-29; ¶118-120, 123, 185-191, 274-308) comprising:
a robot (11/13) (Figs. 6, 29; ¶119-120, 297);
a force detection apparatus (100/150) incorporated in the robot (11/13) (Figs. 6, 29; ¶119-120, 297); and
a robot control apparatus (40, 50) that controls the operation of driving the robot (11/13) based on a result of detection performed by the force detection apparatus (100/150) (Figs. 8, 28; ¶126-135, 274-280),
wherein the force detection apparatus (150) includes
first and second force sensors (111, 112) each including a force detection device (as per “strain gauge-type load cells” in ¶298) having a force detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction, the Y-axis direction” in ¶299) (Fig. 29; ¶297-299),
a first inertial sensor (141) disposed in a vicinity of the first force sensor (111) and having an inertia detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction” in ¶302) extending along the force detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction” in ¶299) of the first force sensor (111) (Fig. 29; ¶297-302), and
a second inertial sensor (142) disposed in a vicinity of the second force sensor (112) and having an inertia detection axis (as per “the Y-axis direction” in ¶302) extending along the force detection axis (as per “the Y-axis direction” in ¶299) of the second force sensor (112) (Fig. 29; ¶297-302),
wherein the first and second inertial sensors (141, 142) are each a sensor (as per “strain-gauge type load cells” in ¶302) that detects acceleration (as per “the first acceleration sensor 141 detect … acceleration … in the Z-axis direction” and “the second acceleration sensor 142 detect … acceleration … in the Y-axis direction” in ¶307) in a directions along the inertial detection axis (as per “the Z-axis direction, the Y-axis direction” in ¶302) (Fig. 29; ¶297-307).
Nakatani further discloses wherein cost is a design consideration (¶310). Nakatani does not expressly disclose wherein the first and second inertial sensors detect angular velocity around the inertial detection axis.
Furuhata discloses an inertia measurement device (2000, 3100) that includes a physical quantity sensor (1) (Figs. 1, 9-11; ¶51, 119-132). The inertial measurement device (3100) includes a tri-axis acceleration sensor (3110) and a tri-axis angular velocity sensor (3120) (Fig. 11; ¶129-132). In one embodiment, the inertial measurement device (2000, 3100) is applied in an automobile (¶131). In another embodiment, the inertial measurement device (2000, 3100) is applied in a robot (¶121). Like Nakatani, Furuhata is concerned with sensor systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nakatani and Furuhata, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Furuhata to the system Nakatani since doing so would enhance the system by reducing the cost of the system in the event that suitable inertial sensors as per Furuhata were cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed embodiments for the inertial sensors as per Nakatani.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakatani (US Pub. No. 2014/0230581) in view of Furuhata (US Pub. No. 2019/0101395), further in view of Miyasaka (US Pub. No. 2019/0263000).
As per Claim 5, the combination of Nakatani and Furuhata teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 1. Nakatani further discloses wherein cost is a design consideration (¶310). Nakatani does not expressly disclose wherein the force detection devices each include a quartz plate.
Miyasaka discloses a force detecting device (100) that includes a plurality of sensor devices (1) in the form of force detection elements (3) (Figs. 14, 16; ¶134-135, 144). In one embodiment, the force detection elements (3) include piezoelectric elements (31, 32), the piezoelectric elements (31, 32) having layers (e.g., 312, 322) formed of quartz (Figs. 6, 14, 16; ¶68-70, 134-135, 144). As such, Miyasaka discloses wherein the force detection devices (3) each include a quartz plate (e.g., 312) (Figs. 6, 14, 16; ¶68-70, 134-135, 144). In operation, the force detecting device (100) is installed on a robot arm (1000) detects forces applied on the robot arm (1000) (Fig. 18; ¶149-155). In this way, Miyasaka discloses that the force detecting device (100) is suitable for operation on a robot (1000). Like Nakatani, Miyasaka is concerned with robot control systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Nakatani, Furuhata, and Miyasaka, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Furuhata and Miyasaka to the system of Nakatani since doing so would enhance the system by reducing the cost of the system in the event that suitable sensors as per Furuhata and Miyasaka were cheaper to implement than expressly disclosed embodiments for the sensors as per Nakatani.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 August 2024 have been fully considered as follows.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “in Nakatani, the acceleration sensor 141 is merely used to detect acceleration that act on the article Q” and “The acceleration sensor 141 is not used to detect angular velocity around the inertial detection axis” (page 6 of Amendment). However, no rejection involves an assertion that Nakatani individually discloses the limitation at issue. Therefore, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Applicant argues that rejections under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 should not be maintained because “Nakatani nowhere teaches receiving external force based on the first force and the second force” (page 7 of Amendment). The claim recites: “a force detection circuit that calculates a first force resulting from removal of an inertia component from a force received by the first force sensor based on a result of detection performed by the first inertial sensor, calculates a second force resulting from removal of an inertia component from a force received by the second force sensor based on a result of detection performed by the second inertial sensor, and calculates a received external force based on the first force and the second force”.
Consistent with the citations in the rejections, Nakatani discloses:
¶135: The control unit 40 executes various processes on the basis of the inputted detection signals. First, the control
unit 40 removes noise frequency components included in the detection signals of the force sensor 21 and the acceleration sensor 22 with the aid of the low-pass filters 37a, 37b. The control unit 40 divides the detection signal of the force sensor 21, from which the noise frequency component has been removed, by the detection signal of the acceleration sensor 22 with the aid of a divider 41, and thereafter functions as a subtractor 43 to thereby compute the formula (12) using the division results, and calculate the mass m. In other words, the control unit 40 calculates the mass m of the article Q on the basis of the detection signals of the force sensor 21 and the acceleration sensor 22.
¶273: … in the second mass measurement scheme, the output of the acceleration sensor 4B is deemed to be vibration acceleration that acts on the article Q, and the value obtained by multiplying that output by a coefficient
based on the mass of a structure accessory to the acceleration sensor 4B is subtracted from the output of the force sensor 1B. As a result, the mass of the article is measured with the effect of vibration having been removed. Portions that support the measurement of mass using the second mass measurement scheme shall be generically referred to as a second mass measurement unit.
¶275: The control unit 40 subtracts the detection signal of the acceleration sensor 4B that has passed through the coefficient multiplication unit 47 from the detection signal of the force sensor 1B that has passed through the low-pass filter 37a to calculate the mass m.
¶280: … Also, the output of the acceleration sensor 4B is deemed to be mechanical vibration propagated to the article
Q, and the output of the acceleration sensor 4B is subtracted from the output of the force sensor 1B to thereby remove the effect of mechanical vibration from the output of the force sensor 1B and thereby improve weighing precision (second mass measurement scheme).
Accordingly, Nakatani discloses that the control unit (40) functions to remove a noise frequency component of the detection signal of the force sensor, the noise frequency component determined using the acceleration sensor. In this way, detection of external force as per the force sensor is corrected by subtracting a noise component as per the acceleration sensor. As such, for embodiments featuring plural and corresponding force and acceleration sensors as per Fig. 29, Nakatani discloses “a force detection circuit that calculates a first force resulting from removal of an inertia component from a force received by the first force sensor based on a result of detection performed by the first inertial sensor, calculates a second force resulting from removal of an inertia component from a force received by the second force sensor based on a result of detection performed by the second inertial sensor, and calculates a received external force based on the first force and the second force” as claimed.
Therefore, Nakatani discloses all limitations in the claim language at issue. As such, Applicant’s argument involves an improper interpretation of the claim language and/or an improper interpretation of the cited reference. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not identify a proper basis for finding that any rejection is improper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tsuchihashi (US Patent No. 4,906,907), Tanabe (US Pub. No. 2016/0031086), and Komatsu (US Pub. No. 2019/0263008) discloses sensor systems for robots.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached on (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664