DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 10/12/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system to: split forces acting on an articulated body into one or more external forces and one or more internal forces; determine, based at least on integrating the one or more external forces, a first momentum of the articulated body; determine, based at least on integrating the one or more internal forces, a second momentum of the articulated body; determine a velocity based at least on a delta between the first momentum and the second momentum; and apply the velocity to one or more links of the articulated body. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “split forces” and “determine” and “apply” cover to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality in combination with a specific articulated body. The “apply” covers intangible application of the velocity in a virtual environment (see claim 8). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: one or more processing units to implement the steps. The “processing units” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processing units” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 – 8 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 2 compute an inverse of a compound inertia of the articulated body, further wherein the one or more processing units determine the velocity based at least on the inverse of the compound inertia; Claim 3 wherein the first momentum and the second momentum correspond to angular momentums, and the one or more processing units are further to compute a linear momentum based at least on at least one of the first momentum or the second momentum; Claim 4 wherein the velocity is applied to a root link of the one or more links; Claim 5 compute a linear velocity of the articulated body with respect to a center of mass of the articulated body after the integrating the one or more external forces and the one or more internal forces; determine, based at least on the linear velocity, a previous center of mass position prior to the integrating the one or more external forces and the one or more internal forces; determine a vector corresponding to a difference between the center of mass and the previous center of mass; and displace the one or more links based at least on the vector; Claim 6 determine a first compound inertia associated with the first momentum and a second compound inertia associated with the second momentum, wherein the delta corresponds to the first compound inertia and the second compound inertia. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “compute” covers mathematical calculations related to the articulated body. The recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “determine” cover to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality in combination with a specific values. The “wherein the first momentum and the second momentum correspond to” and “wherein the velocity is applied to” and “wherein the delta corresponds to” further limit the parent claim abstract idea steps, without precluding performance in the mind. The “displace” covers intangible application of the velocity in a virtual environment (see claim 8). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 6 cause a presentation of the articulated body; Claim 8 wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conservational AI operations; a system for real-time streaming applications; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs ); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. For example, the “cause a presentation” amounts to insignificant data outputting (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The “system is comprised in at least one of” further limits the system to exist in the context with one or more commercially available computing systems, which amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “system is comprised in at least one of” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The “cause a presentation” covers well-understood, routine and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). Considering the additional elements in combination does not add anything more than when considering them individually since the “cause a presentation” requires no more than generic computer functions. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) processor to: split forces acting on an articulated body into one or more external forces and one or more internal forces; determine, based at least on integrating the one or more external forces, a first momentum of the articulated body; determine, based at least on integrating the one or more internal forces, a second momentum of the articulated body; determine a velocity based at least on a delta between the first momentum and the second momentum; and apply the velocity to one or more links of the articulated body. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “split forces” and “determine” and “apply” cover to modeling actions recited at a high-level of generality in combination with a specific articulated body. The “apply” covers intangible application of the velocity in a virtual environment (see claim 8). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: one or more processing units to implement the steps. The “processing units” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processing units” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10 – 16 are substantially identical to dependent claims 2 – 8, and are directed to abstract ideas for the same reasons.
Independent claim 17 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) system to: the adjustment to the velocity being computed based at least on constraining a change in momentum determined from one or more internal forces associated with the articulated body. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “computed” covers mathematical calculations related to the articulated body. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: one or more processing units to simulate an articulated body based at least on an adjustment to a velocity that is associated with a root link of the articulated body. The “processing units” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The “simulate” amounts to reciting the words “apply it” since it recites the idea of an outcome based on the ”computed”. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “processing units” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The “simulate” covers well-understood, routine, and conventional activity since it requires no more than commercially available mathematical solvers (see the instant application Paragraph 69 “In at least one embodiment, a rigid body solver ( or plainly a solver) comprises a simulator or rendering physics engine and a solver component, which together simulate movements of rigid links about one or more joints within a simulation”). For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 18 – 20 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s): Claim 18 wherein the adjustment to the velocity is further computed based at least on a change in momentum determined from one or more external forces associated with the articulated body; Claim 19 wherein the one or more processing units determine the change in momentum by computing an angular momentum and computing a linear momentum using the angular momentum. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations in part, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). For example, the “computed” and “computing” covers mathematical calculations related to the articulated body. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 20 wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conservational AI operations; a system for real-time streaming applications; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs ); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. For example, the “system is comprised in at least one of” further limits the system to exist in the context with one or more commercially available computing systems, which amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the “system is comprised in at least one of” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. For at least these reasons, the claim(s) are not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears to contain a typographical error as depending from claim 91. The claim is interpreted as depending from claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 5 (and similarly claim 13) “compute a linear velocity of the articulated body with respect to a center of mass of the articulated body after the integrating the one or more external forces and the one or more internal forces; determine, based at least on the linear velocity, a previous center of mass position prior to the integrating the one or more external forces and the one or more internal forces; determine a vector corresponding to a difference between the center of mass and the previous center of mass; and displace the one or more links based at least on the vector”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Horsewill, I. "Lightweight Procedural Animation With Believable Physical Interactions" teaches a physically plausible way of animating articulated bodies. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: compute a linear velocity of the articulated body with respect to a center of mass of the articulated body after the integrating the one or more external forces and the one or more internal forces; determine, based at least on the linear velocity, a previous center of mass position prior to the integrating the one or more external forces and the one or more internal forces; determine a vector corresponding to a difference between the center of mass and the previous center of mass; and displace the one or more links based at least on the vector.
Deits et al. (US 2022/0410378) teaches an expected motion of the center of mass of the robot computed by an MPC. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: compute a linear velocity of the articulated body with respect to a center of mass of the articulated body after the integrating the one or more external forces and the one or more internal forces; determine, based at least on the linear velocity, a previous center of mass position prior to the integrating the one or more external forces and the one or more internal forces; determine a vector corresponding to a difference between the center of mass and the previous center of mass; and displace the one or more links based at least on the vector.
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.
(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.
Claims 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nenchev, D. “The Momentum Equilibrium Principle: Foot Contact Stabilization With Relative Angular Momentum/Velocity” (henceforth “Nenchev”).
With regard to claim 17, Nenchev teaches a system comprising: one or more processing units to
simulate an articulated body based at least on an adjustment to a velocity that is associated with a root link of the articulated body, (Figure 1 relative angular velocity is used to stabilize (adjustment to a velocity) an articulated multibody system having a base link (associated with a root link) “A necessary condition for system stabilization is to generate a RAV in the direction opposite to the system angular velocity.”, and Page 8, Left “In this way, the proposed balance controller is endowed with the unique property of complying with an external disturbance and, in the same time, of restoring the balance when the foot/feet have begun to roll”)
the adjustment to the velocity being computed based at least on constraining a change in momentum determined from one or more internal forces associated with the articulated body. (Page 18, Left and 20, Right system angular momentum is controlled for stability (constraining a change in momentum) “The latter is achieved with an appropriate motion of the upper limbs. This leads to a significant advantage: the trunk can be used e.g. to accommodate an external disturbance without deteriorating thereby the system angular momentum control.”, and Page 18, Right internal torques are affected (from internal forces) “This controller has the capability to deal with external disturbances of impulsive character and also, to distribute the body-wrench in a meaningful way”)
With regard to claim 18, Nenchev teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches: wherein the adjustment to the velocity is further computed based at least on a change in momentum determined from one or more external forces associated with the articulated body. (Page 18, Left and 20, Right system angular momentum control takes into account external disturbances (determined from external forces) “The latter is achieved with an appropriate motion of the upper limbs. This leads to a significant advantage: the trunk can be used e.g. to accommodate an external disturbance without deteriorating thereby the system angular momentum control.”)
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nenchev, D. “The Momentum Equilibrium Principle: Foot Contact Stabilization With Relative Angular Momentum/Velocity” (henceforth “Nenchev”) in view of Wang et al. “On Inverse Inertia Matrix and Contact-Force Modelfor Robotic Manipulators at Normal Impacts” (henceforth “Wang”). Nenchev and Wang are analogous art because they solve the same problem of simulating an articulated body, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of simulation of mechanical systems.
With regard to claim 1, Nenchev teaches a system comprising one or more processing units to: (Page 21, Left “The above controller will be referred to as the relative angular momentum/velocity (RAM/V) controller. The block diagram is shown in Fig. 2.”)
determine, based at least on integrating forces, a first momentum of the articulated body; determine, based at least on integrating forces, a second momentum of the articulated body; (Page 19, Right system spatial momentum and CRB spatial momentum are separately determined
PNG
media_image1.png
171
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
determine a velocity based at least on a delta between the first momentum and the second momentum; and (Page 20, Left the delta of the momentums is used to determine the relative spatial velocity
PNG
media_image2.png
188
397
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
apply the velocity to one or more links of the articulated body. (Figure 1 relative angular velocity is used in controlling the system (apply the velocity)
PNG
media_image3.png
691
575
media_image3.png
Greyscale
)
Nenchev does not appear to explicitly disclose: split forces acting on an articulated body into one or more external forces and one or more internal forces; that the determine the first/second momentum is based at least on integrating the one or more external/internal forces.
However, Wang teaches:
split forces acting on an articulated body into one or more external forces and one or more internal forces; (Page 3650, Left the external force is explicitly considered to then generate all the internal torques (internal forces)
PNG
media_image4.png
119
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
)
determine first and second momentum based at least on integrating the one or more external/internal forces. (Page 3650, Left
PNG
media_image5.png
125
393
media_image5.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the CRB based relative momentum control disclosed by Nenchev with the consideration of applied external force on the articulated body disclosed by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to account for impact forces on an articulated body (Wang Page 3648, Left “WHEN a high-stiffness controlled robot impacts rigid surfaces, the robot’s joint velocities and torques values will change instantly, within a fraction to dozens of milliseconds).
With regard to claim 9, it recites that same steps as claim 1, which is taught by Nenchev in view of Wang. Claim 9 further recites: a processor comprising one or more processing units to perform the steps.
Nenchec teaches: a processor comprising one or more processing units to perform the steps (Page 21, Left “The above controller will be referred to as the relative angular momentum/velocity (RAM/V) controller. The block diagram is shown in Fig. 2.”).
With regard to claim 2 and 19, Nenchev in view of Wang teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 9, and further teaches wherein the one or more processing units are further to:
compute an inverse of a compound inertia of the articulated body determine the velocity based at least on the inverse of the compound inertia. (Nenchev Page 18, Right to 19, Left the spatial inertia is a tensor comprising multiple elements (compound)
PNG
media_image6.png
52
284
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
31
305
media_image7.png
Greyscale
, and Page 20, Left inverse of spaital intertia tensor
PNG
media_image8.png
126
443
media_image8.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 3 and 11, Nenchev in view of Wang teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 9, and further teaches:
wherein the first momentum and the second momentum correspond to angular momentums, and (Nenchev Page 19 the coupling spatial momentum (delta between first and second momentum) is an angular momentum
PNG
media_image9.png
58
379
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
165
386
media_image10.png
Greyscale
)
compute a linear momentum based at least on at least one of the first momentum or the second momentum. (Nenchev Page 18, Right linear momentum is directly determined from the system spatial momentum
PNG
media_image11.png
158
381
media_image11.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 4 and 12, Nenchev in view of Wang teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 9, and further teaches: wherein the velocity is applied to a root link of the one or more links. (Nenchev Figure 1 omega_b of base link is controlled)
With regard to claim 6 and 14, Nenchev in view of Wang teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 9, and further teaches: wherein the one or more processing units are further to cause a presentation of the articulated body. (Nenchev Figure 4
PNG
media_image12.png
155
216
media_image12.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 7 and 15, Nenchev in view of Wang teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 9, and further teaches: determine a first compound inertia associated with the first momentum and a second compound inertia associated with the second momentum, wherein the delta corresponds to the first compound inertia and the second compound inertia. (Nenchev Page 19, Right each momentum has its own inertia term
PNG
media_image13.png
163
382
media_image13.png
Greyscale
)
With regard to claim 8 and 16, Nenchev in view of Wang teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1 and 9, and further teaches: wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conservational AI operations; a system for real-time streaming applications; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs ); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (Wang Page 3651, Right modeling is performed inside a robot controller (system implement using a robot) “The robot is controlled in velocity command to impact an ATI-mini45 force-torque sensor fixed at different spots of a rigid wall.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the CRB based relative momentum control disclosed by Nenchev with the model based robot control disclosed by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to account for impact forces on an articulated body (Wang Page 3648, Left “WHEN a high-stiffness controlled robot impacts rigid surfaces, the robot’s joint velocities and torques values will change instantly, within a fraction to dozens of milliseconds).
With regard to claim 20, Nenchev teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17 and does not appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conservational AI operations; a system for real-time streaming applications; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs ); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
However, Wang teaches: wherein a system is comprised in at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conservational AI operations; a system for real-time streaming applications; a system for presenting at least one of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs ); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. (Wang Page 3651, Right modeling is performed inside a robot controller (system implement using a robot) “The robot is controlled in velocity command to impact an ATI-mini45 force-torque sensor fixed at different spots of a rigid wall.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the CRB based relative momentum control disclosed by Nenchev with the model based robot control disclosed by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to account for impact forces on an articulated body (Wang Page 3648, Left “WHEN a high-stiffness controlled robot impacts rigid surfaces, the robot’s joint velocities and torques values will change instantly, within a fraction to dozens of milliseconds).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nenchev in view of Wang, and further in view of Albahkali, T. “AN lMPULSIVE-MOMENTUM APPROACH TO CONTROL OF A CLASS OF UNDERACTUATED MECHANICAL SYSTEMS” (henceforth “Albahkali (Thesis)”). Nenchev and Wang and Albahkali (Thesis) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of simulating an articulated body, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of simulation of mechanical systems.
With regard to claim 19, Nenchev in view of Wang teaches all the elements of the parent claim 17, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more processing units determine the change in momentum by computing an angular momentum and (Nenchev Page 19, Right
PNG
media_image14.png
141
317
media_image14.png
Greyscale
)
Nenchev does not appear to explicitly disclose: computing a linear momentum using the angular momentum.
However, Albahkali (Thesis) teaches: computing a linear momentum using an angular momentum. (Page 19 force on a base link is expressed as linear and angular momentum
PNG
media_image15.png
282
680
media_image15.png
Greyscale
, and Page 20 the m2*(v2+ - v2-) for the linear momentum of equation 2.30 (a linear momentum) are computed using the angular momentums
PNG
media_image16.png
32
38
media_image16.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image17.png
31
90
media_image17.png
Greyscale
in equation 2.36 (using the angular momentum)
PNG
media_image18.png
539
564
media_image18.png
Greyscale
)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the CRB based relative momentum control disclosed by Nenchev with the force and impulse computation on articulated body disclosed by Albahkali (Thesis). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to account for impulsive external forces on an articulated body (Albahkali (Thesis) Page 19).
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner’s notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Goswami et al. (US 2010/0161131) teaches inertia shaping to achieve desired joint velocities, where centroidal moment of inertia directly contributes to centroidal angular momentum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER/ExaminerArt Unit 2187
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 March 21, 2026