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 . 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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The current application is a 371 national stage of PCT/DK2020/050385 and also claims foreign priority to DKPA 201901559 which has a priority date of 12/29/2019. Examiner has checked and verified that the subject matter of the instant application is supported by the earlier filed foreign priority, and as such, the earlier priority date of 12/29/2019 is granted.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed on 02/27/2026. Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Weiss, EP 1920892, herein referred to as Weiss, and in view of Urabe et al., US 20200052622 A1, herein referred to as Urabe.
Regarding claim 1, Weiss discloses a robot controller for controlling a robot arm (Paragraph 0010; robot has a robot control device), the robot arm comprises joints connecting a base and a tool flange (Paragraph 0034 and Fig. 1; robot arm has a plurality of joints with a base and a tool flange), an output flange that is movable in relation to a body of the robot joint (Paragraph 0034 and Fig. 1; robot arm has a flange that moves relative to the body of the robot arm), a motor configured to move the output flange in relation to the body (Paragraph 0034 and Fig. 1; robot arm has multiple motors for moving the joints and flange), the robot controller comprises an external object installation interface configured to receive vibrational properties associated with external objects connected directly or indirectly to the robot arm (Paragraphs 0014, 0019, and 0035; tool attached to end of robot arm is considered a concentrated mass, vibration frequencies of arm and tool can be input as robot parameters using an input device, the input device can be considered the external object installation support device; the tool attached to the arm can be considered directly connected to the robot arm), generating a first signal based on a target motion of the robot arm and vibrational properties of a first one of the external objects (Paragraph 0035, 0038, 0060; robot arm is controlled using a control program to move a certain way or to a certain location, movement of arm is related to dynamic model of system which includes vibrational properties of the robot arm and an attached tool, the first signal can be a signal associated with robotic motion and one external object; the robot tool may be considered the first external object), generating a control signal for the robot arm based on the first signal and vibrational properties of a second one of the external objects (Paragraphs 0035, 0038, and 0060; robot arm is controlled using a control program to move a certain way or to a certain location, movement of arm is related to dynamic model of system which includes vibrational properties of the robot arm, a gripper, and a workpiece gripped by the gripper, the gripped workpiece may be considered the second object), and the control signal comprising one or more control parameters for the motor, and the first one of the external objects being different than the second one of the external objects (Paragraphs 0017,0035, 0042; electric drives of robot arm are controlled utilizing a control program; the tool and the gripped workpiece are both different objects and constitute the first and second external objects, respectively; first and second external objects could also be different (see 0017, “grippers or tools”), but fails to explicitly disclose generating a first signal by convolving a target motion of the robot arm with an object impulse train that is based on the vibrational properties of a first one of the external objects and generating a control signal for the robot arm by convolving the first signal with an object impulse train that is based on the vibrational properties of a second one of the external objects.
However, Urabe teaches generating a first signal by convolving a target motion of the robot arm with an object impulse train that is based on the vibrational properties of a first one of the external objects (Paragraphs 0017, 0079-0080; a convolution may be performed on an impulse response of a robot; an impulse response of the robot contains multiple impulse for a given robot configuration), and generating a control signal for the robot arm by convolving the first signal with an object impulse train that is based on the vibrational properties of a second one of the external objects (Paragraphs 0017, 0079-0080; a new convolution may be performed when the impulse responses are changed due to added impulses; these added impulses could be based on a new configuration of the robot). Therefore, from the teaching of Urabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Weiss to include generating a first signal by convolving a target motion of the robot arm with an object impulse train that is based on the vibrational properties of a first one of the external objects and generating a control signal for the robot arm by convolving the first signal with an object impulse train that is based on the vibrational properties of a second one of the external objects, as taught/suggested by Urabe. The motivation to do so would be to properly characterize the robot and gripper vibrational output as a baseline, and then further characterize the robot, gripper, and workpiece vibrational output. This can help a user determine if any abnormal vibrational characteristics occur in using a given tool/gripper, or a given tool/gripper paired with a given workpiece. This can ultimately allow for better selection of tooling as lower vibrational characteristics of tooling/workpieces would be prioritized.
Regarding claim 2, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Weiss further discloses the external object installation interface is configured to receive the first vibrational properties and the second vibrational properties based on at least one of: a user signal received from a user interface device, a data signal received from an external data source, or an effector signal received from at least one external object (Paragraphs 0038 and 0060; parameters of the robot model may be entered using a keyboard, parameters can include vibrational information of a gripper (first external object) and a gripped object (second external object)).
Regarding claim 3, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Weiss further discloses at least one of the first vibrational properties or the second vibrational properties comprises at least one number (Paragraphs 0035 and 0060; dynamic model of robot includes stiffness and attenuation values which are numbers, gripper and gripped object each can have associated stiffness and damping values).
Regarding claim 4, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Weiss further discloses at least one of the first vibrational properties or the second vibrational properties is based on at least one external object vibration formula, where the at least one external object vibration formula defines a relationship between the first vibrational properties or the second vibrational properties and at least one robot parameter (Fig. 12, Paragraphs 0035, 0050, and 0060; a formula for determining a stiffness of the dynamic model is used, stiffness of the dynamic model can include stiffness and damping values of a gripper (first external object) and/or a gripped object (second external object) as well as damping and stiffness values of the rest of the robot, the model can include a gripper which is a first external attached object, as well as a gripped object which is a second external object).
Regarding claim 5, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Weiss further discloses at least one of the first vibrational properties or the second vibrational properties is based on at least one of eigenfrequencies or a damping ratio of the first one of the external objects or the second one of the external objects, respectively (Paragraphs 0023-0024 and 0035; frequencies of robot may be input which include the natural frequencies of each component based on harmonic oscillation (specifically see formula in 0024), robot can include the gripper (first external object) as well as the gripped object (second external object)).
Regarding claim 6, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Weiss further discloses the robot controller is connected to a user interface device (Paragraphs 0035 and 0038; a keyboard is connected to the control device), and the user interface device comprising an external object installation module that enables a user to manually provide at least one of the first vibrational properties or the second vibrational properties of the first one of the external objects or the second one of the external objects, respectively (Paragraphs 0038 and 0060; a keyboard can be used to enter stiffness and attenuation values as parameters for the robot, robot can include a gripper (first external object) as well as a gripped object (second external object)).
Regarding claim 7, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 6. Weiss further discloses a first external object installation interface configured so that the user can provide the first vibrational properties (Paragraphs 0035 and 0038; a user can input vibrational properties as parameters for the robot, the robot can include a tool which is an external object), and a second external object installation interface configured so that the user can provide the second vibrational properties (Paragraphs 0035, 0038, and 0060; multiple tools or grippers can be attached to the robot, a user can enter different vibrational properties for the robot based on the gripper as well as the gripped object).
Regarding claim 8, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 6. Weiss further discloses an additional interface configured to enable the user to provide vibrational properties of one or more additional external objects connected to the robot arm (Paragraphs 0017, 0038, and 0060; vibrational properties may be input for a variety of tools and/or workpieces gripped by the tools, an additional tool or additional workpiece may be considered one or more additional external objects connected to the robot arm).
Regarding claim 9, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Wiess further discloses generating the first control signal for the robot arm based on a target motion and the vibrational properties of the at least one external object (Paragraphs 0035 and 0060; robot arm is controlled using a control program to move a certain way or to a certain location, movement of arm is related to dynamic model of system which includes vibrational properties of the robot arm and gripper, as well as a gripped object), but fails to disclose the object impulse train that is based on the vibrational properties of a first one of the external objects comprises impulses, and wherein the object impulse train based on the vibrational properties of the second one of the external objects comprises impulses. However, the obviousness of utilizing impulse trains for robot configurations is shown in the rationale for claim 1 and would be applicable here as well.
Regarding claim 10, Weiss in view of Urabe renders obvious all the limitations of claim 1. Weiss further discloses obtaining the first and second vibrational properties (Paragraphs 0038 and 0060; parameters can be entered into the system and can include vibrational information of a gripper (first external object) and a gripped object (second external object)).
Regarding claims 11-17, the claim limitations are similar to those in claims 1-8 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claims 1-8.
Regarding claim 18, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 9 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, a portion of the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1. Additionally, Weiss discloses instructing a first part of the robot arm to move to a first target position (Paragraph 0046; robot model is used to regulate motion and positioning of robotic arm; robot model uses robot arm which has multiple parts), changing at least one of the first vibrational properties or the second vibrational properties to produce changed vibrational properties (Paragraphs 0017 and 0047; keyboard can be used to input robot parameters; parameters can change based on what the robot arm is made of; different tooling or grippers could have different vibrational properties; a user entering different vibrational information for a different tool or gripped workpiece can be considered as producing changed vibrational properties; for instance, a first tool would be the first external object and would have distinct vibrational properties, a second, different tool would require a change in vibrational information that would be input using the keyboard), instructing a second part of the robot arm to move to a second target position (Paragraph 0046; robot model is used to regulate motion and positioning of robotic arm; robot model uses robot arm which has multiple parts; motion of robotic arm may be based on the currently attached tool/gripper and gripped object/workpiece, and as such, the motion could be considered a second motion), generating an additional control signal based on the second target motion of the robot arm and the changed vibrational properties, the second control signal comprising one or more control parameters (Paragraphs 0035 and 0042; robot arm is controlled using a control program to move a certain way or to a certain location, movement of arm is related to dynamic model of system which includes vibrational properties of the robot arm, tool/gripper, and gripped object; electric drives of robot arm are controlled utilizing a control program; if a user enters different vibrational properties for a new tool or workpiece, the control signals used for controlling the robot arm will be changed and can be considered an additional control signal).
Regarding claim 21, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 20 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that the prior art fails to disclose the claim limitations. Specifically, Applicant is arguing that the prior art combination of Weiss and Urabe fails to teach the limitations of independent claims 1, 11, and 20. Namely, Applicant is arguing that Urabe teaches repeated convolutions based on a given mechanical model, not based on different first and second external objects as claimed. However, even if Urabe teaches a convolution with an impulse train of a given mechanical mode, this convolution can still be obviously combined with the teaching of Weiss, wherein there are two different external objects connected to the robotic arm. This would be an obvious teaching as a new configuration (tool + gripped workpiece) would require a convolution with the current impulse train of the model (robotic arm, tool, and gripped workpiece). This would allow for the system to always account for new sources of vibration in a given system as the type of tooling, and even the type of workpiece being held, can affect how the robotic arm operates.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A BUKSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights