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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This correspondence is in response to amendments filed on February 24, 2026. Claims 1, 10, 15, 21, and 25 are amended. Claims 2-3, 7-9, 11, 13-14, 16-19, and 23 are filed as previously presented. Claims 4-6, 12, 20, 22, and 24 are cancelled. Amendments to claims 10, 15, and 21 obviate the claim objections, and as such those objections have been withdrawn. Amendments to claim 25 obviate the 112b rejection of the previous action, and as such that rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Madsen does not teach a value which is a difference `limitation of claims 1 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references relied upon in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “Wherein:” in line 4. Examiner recommends removing the capitalization of this line such that the limitation conforms with typical practice and additionally the rest of Applicant’s claim set.
Claim 16 additionally recites “…qr is the third input indicating a desired configuration of the joint and kpo, kpi, kdo, kdi and kt are gains…” in lines 4-5. In order to appropriately separate the list such that it is clear which features are to be clearly distinguished as separate entities in considering the language of the claim, Examiner recommends including additional commas such that the claim instead reads “…qr is the third input indicating a desired configuration of the joint, and kpo, kpi, kdo, kdi, and kt are gains…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-3, 7-11, 16-17, 19, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen (US 2022/0226993 A1) in view of De Luca et al. (“Robots with Flexible Elements”, 2016).
Regarding claim 1, Madsen teaches a controller for controlling a configuration of a joint in a surgical robot (“The robot arm comprises at least one robot controller 115 configured to control the robot joints” [0040].), the joint being driven by a drivetrain which transfers power from a drive source to the joint (“The robot joint comprises a joint motor 209 having a motor axle 225. The motor axle 225 is configured to rotate an output axle 227 via a robot joint transmission 229. The robot joint transmission can be any device transferring the rotation of the motor axle to the output axle and may for instance be provided as a direct drive where the motor axle is directly coupled with the output axle and the motor axle and output may thus be the same” [0041]. In this case, the drive source is the motor axle 225 while the drivetrain is the robot joint transmission which transfers the rotation from the motor axle to the output axle, i.e., joint.), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive a first input indicating a configuration of the drive source (“… the input encoder 237 can be any encoder capable of indicating the angular position, velocity and/or acceleration of … the motor axle” [0042]. Thus, a first configuration, i.e., position/velocity/acceleration, of the drive source, i.e., motor axle, is received from the input encoder 237.);
receive a second input from a first sensor, the second input indicating a measured configuration of the joint in the surgical robot (“The output encoder 235 … can be any encoder capable of indicating the angular position, velocity and/or acceleration of … the output axle” [0042]. Thus, a second configuration, i.e., position/velocity/acceleration, of the joint, i.e., the output axle, is received from the output encoder, i.e., the first sensor.);
receive a third input indicating a desired configuration for the joint, wherein the desired configuration is a desired physical position of the joint (“In the illustrated embodiment the motion planner module provides a desired motion M.sub.d of parts of the robot arm. The desired motion of parts of the robot arm can for instance be indicated as motions properties of the robot joints, such as angular position q.sub.d of output axles of the joint transmissions, a desired angular velocity {dot over (q)}.sub.d of output axles of the joint transmissions, a desired angular acceleration {umlaut over (q)}.sub.d of the robot transmission” [0111]. Thus, the controller receives a desired motion M.sub.d which includes desired angular position q.sub.d of the output axle, i.e., the joint.);
calculate a value of output torque about the joint using the first input and the second input (“Based on the angular position of the motor axle θ and the angular position of the output axle q, the joint transmission deformation Φ.sub.joint is determined by a joint transmission deformation module 1190 based on eq. 3. … Based on the joint transmission deformation and the time-derivative of the joint transmission deformation, the joint torque τ.sub.J is obtained by a joint torque obtaining module 1192 based on eq. 4” [0098]. Thus, Equations 3 and 4 provide the necessary calculations for deriving the joint torque, i.e., output torque, using the angular position of the motor axle, i.e., first input, and the angular position of the output axle, i.e., the second input.);
calculate, using the value of output torque and … the first input and the third input, a value of input torque to be applied to the joint in the surgical robot by the drive source (See Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0106-0108] which describe calculations for the desired motor torque, i.e., a value of input torque, which is applied to control the robot via the motor, i.e., drive source. These calculations are based on variables M.sub.d inclusive of the third input (desired angular position q.sub.d of the transmission), the first input (angular position θ of the motor axle), and additionally the value of output torque (τ.sub.J). Examiner will additionally rely on Fig. 9 which provides a more sophisticated method in determining the resulting motor torque relying on the same such variables in making this determination.); and
control the drive source responsive to the value of input torque such that the input torque is applied to the joint in the surgical robot by the drive source (“The joint motor 209 is configured to rotate the motor axle by applying a motor torque to the motor axle as known in the art of motor control, for instance based on a motor control signal 233 indicating the torque, τ.sub.control applied by the motor axle, for instance by driving the joint motor with a motor current i.sub.motor proportional with a motor torque” [0042]. “The motor current controller may be provided as any motor control driver driving and controlling motors base on a desired torque. Typically, such motor control drivers generate signal indicative of the current to be provided to the motor coil” [0194]. Thus, the motor, i.e., drive source, is controlled in response to the value of input torque, i.e., the resulting motor torque, such that the input torque is applied to the robot joint by the motor via the resulting motor control current.).
However, Madsen is silent to the teaching in which the value of input torque to be applied to the joint is calculated using …a value which is a difference between the first input and the third input… In the analysis of Fig. 9 in which torque errors are used to determine the resulting motor torque to be applied to controlling the motor, Examiner ascertains that τ.sub.m,torque-err is calculated based on the difference between a desired transmission torque and an actual transmission torque, and additionally τ.sub.m,err is calculated based on “minimizing errors between at least one of: … a desired angular position Θ.sub.d of the motor axle and the angular position Θ of the motor axle” ([0153], [0158]). Thus, the errors are each calculated based on the transmission torque (output torque) and at least a difference including a desired angular position of the motor axle (not used by Applicant) and the actual angular position of the motor axle (first input).
De Luca, in the same field of endeavor, provides more detailed mathematical analyses for determining dynamics and control models for robots with flexible joints. Similar such calculations for determining an input torque using full-state feedback are shown in Equations 11.53 and 11.54 (see Page 261). In addition to such equations, Page 250 provides the equation used to determine the desired transmission torque at the joint, τ.sub.J,d, which directly relates the desired angular position Θ.sub.d of the motor axle with the desired angular position of the joint q.sub.d, and determines that the quantity can additionally be expressed as differentiable values of those desired variables.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the determination of τ.sub.m,err as taught by Madsen to include a variable substitution of Θ.sub.d in terms of q.sub.d and τ.sub.J,d scaled for the spring constant of the robotic joint transmission as taught by De Luca with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a substitution would determine a minimization of errors between q.sub.d (third input) and Θ (first input) as is contemplated by the instant application. Motivation for such a modification is determined to be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I(B)). Given that the same variables necessary to make this substitution are already determined/contemplated by Madsen, such a substitution is additionally an example of a design choice in which known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field (such as selected variables for determining the contemplated result) based on design incentives if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (substitution of variables is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus predictable) (MPEP 2143.I(F)).
Regarding claim 2, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the first input is received from a second sensor and indicates a measured configuration of the drive source (“… the input encoder 237 can be any encoder capable of indicating the angular position, velocity and/or acceleration of … the motor axle” [0042]. Thus, the first input is indicative of a measured configuration of the drive source, i.e., position/velocity/acceleration of the motor axle, and is received from the input encoder 237, i.e., the second sensor.).
Regarding claim 3, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 2,
wherein the measured configuration of the drive source is a measured physical position of the drive source, and the measured configuration of the joint is a measured physical position of the joint (“The robot joint comprises at least one joint sensor providing a sensor signal indicative of at least the angular position, q, of the output axle and an angular position, Θ, of the motor axle” [0042]. Thus, the configuration which included angular position provides measured angular position of the drive source, i.e., angular position of the motor axle Θ, and measured angular position of the joint, i.e., angular position of the output axle q.).
Regarding claim 7, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the value of input torque is calculated using a comparison between the second input and the third input (“Step 966 of determining error correction motor torque τ.sub.m,err indicating a motor torque minimizing errors between at least one of: … a desired angular position q.sub.d of the output axle and the angular position q of the output axle” [0153,0155]. Thus, there would be an error analysis comparing the desired angular position, i.e., third input, and the measured angular position, i.e., second input, wherein the error correction factors into final calculation for input torque in steps 967 and 968.).
Regarding claim 8, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references cited directly within rejection) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the value of input torque is calculated using a comparison between a first derivative of the first input and a first derivative of the third input (“Step 966 of determining error correction motor torque τ.sub.m,err indicating a motor torque minimizing errors between at least one of: … a desired angular velocity {dot over (Θ)}.sub.d of the motor axle and the angular velocity {dot over (Θ)} of the motor axle” (Madsen, [0153,0159]). Thus, given that De Luca teaches that the desired transmission torque is differentiable as a function of {dot over (Θ)}.sub.d and {dot over (q)}.sub.d (De Luca, Page 250), the same rationale for variable substitution described for claim 1 may be included for the teachings of this limitation in claim 8.).
Regarding claim 9, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the value of input torque is calculated using a comparison between a first derivative of the second input and a first derivative of third input (“Step 966 of determining error correction motor torque τ.sub.m,err indicating a motor torque minimizing errors between at least one of: … a desired angular velocity {dot over (q)}.sub.d of the output axle and the angular velocity {dot over (q)} of the output axle” [0153,0156]. Thus, there would be an error analysis comparing the desired angular velocity, i.e., derivative of the third input, and the measured angular velocity, i.e., derivative of the second input, wherein the error correction factors into final calculation for input torque in steps 967 and 968.).
Regarding claim 10, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the value of output torque is characterised by a relationship between an elongation value of the drivetrain and a stiffness value of the drivetrain (“τ.sub.joint,i(Φ.sub.joint,i,{dot over (Φ)}.sub.joint,i)=τ.sub.E,i(Φ.sub.joint,i)+τ.sub.D,i({dot over (Φ)}.sub.joint,i) eq. 4
where τ.sub.E,i(Φ.sub.joint,i) is a flexibility torque depending on the robot joint transmission stiffness K.sub.i and the joint transmission deformation of the robot joint transmission” [0050]. Thus, in the calculation for the output torque, i.e., τ.sub.joint, there exists a flexibility torque which depends on the stiffness of the robot joint transmission, i.e., stiffness of the drivetrain, and the joint transmission deformation of the robot joint transmission, i.e., an elongation value of the drivetrain.).
Regarding claim 11, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
… where qi is the first input (Θ), q0 is the second input (q) and kp is a spring coefficient of the drivetrain (“The stiffness K.sub.i of the spring indicates the transmission stiffness of the robot joint transmission” [0044]. Stiffness of the robot joint transmission is an equivalent to the spring coefficient of the drivetrain.), and
wherein kp is related to (qi – q0) by a continuous function (“The transmission stiffness K.sub.i of the robot joint transmission can be characterized by how much the flexibility torque τ.sub.E,i(Φ.sub.joint,i) causing the joint transmission deformation changes as a function of the joint transmission deformation” [0051]. See Equation 5 which models K.sub.i as the derivative function of flexibility torque with respect to the joint transmission deformation, i.e., qi-q0.).
However, Madsen does not explicitly teach …wherein the value of output torque is represented by the equation To=kp(qi-q0)…
Equation 4 of Madsen provides an equation for output torque in terms of a flexibility torque and a damping torque. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that if the damping, D.sub.i, is zero, equation 4 would reduce to To=kp(qi-q0), in terms of the above defined variables in combination with equation 3 of Madsen. Thus, Madsen teaches the equation of claim 11 as equation 4 (see [0050]) in the absence of transmission damping.
Regarding claim 16, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references cited directly within rejection) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1, …
Wherein: qi is the first input (Θ as determined by both Madsen and De Luca), qo is the second input (q as determined by both Madsen and De Luca), qr is the third input indicating a desired configuration for the joint (q.sub.d as determined by both Madsen and De Luca) and kpo, kpi, kdo, kdi, and kt are gains associated with the first, second, and third inputs (See Page 261 of De Luca which includes gains KPΘ, KPq, KDΘ, KDq, KPJ, and KDJ which are each associated with the first, second, and third inputs described in the claim above in the determination of Equations 11.53 and 11.54.).
However, Madsen as modified by De Luca does not explicitly teach …the value of the input torque is represented by the following equation:
Ti=kpo(qr - q0) + kpi(qr - qi) + kdo(qr’ - qo’) + kdi(qr’ - qi’) - ktkp(qi - q0).
It is noted, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving input torque, as shown by both Madsen and De Luca. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In addition, because both Madsen and De Luca are directed to flexible joint transmissions (as is contemplated by the invention of the instant application), it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have substituted any of the provided calculations including those described in Fig. 5 and Fig. 9 of Madsen, or additionally Equations 11.53 and 11.54 of De Luca to achieve predictable result of a value of input torque based on the above described variables for first, second, and third inputs scaled by desired gain values.
Regarding claim 17, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
the controller being configured to repeatedly calculate the value of output torque (The system of Fig. 6 shows a closed loop control in which the output torque is calculated in order to generate each input torque/control current which is transmitted to the robot joints, thus a repeated calculation of output torque based on each updated measurement of the configurations of the motor axle and output axle.).
Regarding claim 19, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1, wherein calculating the value of input torque comprises subtracting a torque term which compensates for an action of gravity from the value of output torque (Regarding Equation 10 which determines the value of the output torque, “g(q) is the gravity torques acting on the robot arm as a function of the angular position of the output axles of the robot joint transmissions” [0076]. Thus, given that Fig. 1 indicates that gravity opposes the system (see arrow 123 which is pointed in a downward direction), this gravity torque term would be provided as a negative value acting against the system and is thus subtracted from the value of the output torque to compensate for the action of gravity on the system.).
Note: De Luca additionally provides a plurality of similar gravity compensation methods as demonstrated throughout various sections of the document.
Regarding claim 21, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the first sensor is located at, or at a position proximal to, a second end of the drivetrain at which the joint is located (See Fig. 2, wherein the output encoder 235, i.e., the first sensor, is located on the second end of the joint transmission 229, i.e., drivetrain, at which the joint, i.e., output axle 227, is located.), and
a second sensor indicating a measured configuration of the drive source is located at, or at a position proximal to, a first end of the drivetrain at which the drive source is located (See Fig. 2, wherein the input encoder 237, i.e., the second sensor, is located at a first end of the joint transmission 229, i.e., drivetrain, at which the drive source, i.e., motor axle 225, is located.).
Regarding claim 23, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the drivetrain is a harmonic drive comprising one or more gears (“The robot joint transmission may also be provided as a robot joint gear providing a ratio between the motor axle and the output axle, for instance in order to increase the rotational torque provided by the output axle. The robot joint gear can be provided as any kind of gear mechanism such as strain wave gears, planet gears, epicyclic gears, spur gears, bevel gears etc. and may be provided as single stager or multi stage gear systems” [0041]. “The flexibility of a robot joint transmission can be represented as a spring 326 and a damper 328 coupled in parallel between the input side (motor axle) and the output side (output axle) of the robot joint transmission. The stiffness K.sub.i of the spring indicates the transmission stiffness of the robot joint transmission and the damping D.sub.i of the damper indicates the damping of the robot joint transmission” [0044]. Thus, the drivetrain, i.e., robot joint transmission, is harmonic as it comprises a spring and damper, and also comprises one or more gears.).
Regarding claim 25, Madsen teaches a method for controlling a configuration of a joint in a surgical robot (“The present invention relates to methods of controlling a robot arm comprising a plurality of robot joints” [0001].), the joint being driven by a drivetrain which transfers power from a drive source to the joint (“The robot joint comprises a joint motor 209 having a motor axle 225. The motor axle 225 is configured to rotate an output axle 227 via a robot joint transmission 229. The robot joint transmission can be any device transferring the rotation of the motor axle to the output axle and may for instance be provided as a direct drive where the motor axle is directly coupled with the output axle and the motor axle and output may thus be the same” [0041]. In this case, the drive source is the motor axle 225 while the drivetrain is the robot joint transmission 229 which transfers the rotation from the motor axle to the output axle, i.e., joint.), the method comprising:
receiving a first input indicating a configuration of the drive source (“… the input encoder 237 can be any encoder capable of indicating the angular position, velocity and/or acceleration of … the motor axle” [0042]. Thus, a first configuration, i.e., position/velocity/acceleration, of the drive source, i.e., motor axle, is received from the input encoder 237.);
receiving a second input from a first sensor, the second input indicating a measured configuration of the joint in the surgical robot (“The output encoder 235 … can be any encoder capable of indicating the angular position, velocity and/or acceleration of … the output axle” [0042]. Thus, a second configuration, i.e., position/velocity/acceleration, of the joint, i.e., the output axle, is received from the output encoder, i.e., the first sensor.);
receiving a third input indicating a desired configuration for the joint, wherein the desired configuration is a desired physical position of the joint (“In the illustrated embodiment the motion planner module provides a desired motion M.sub.d of parts of the robot arm. The desired motion of parts of the robot arm can for instance be indicated as motions properties of the robot joints, such as angular position q.sub.d of output axles of the joint transmissions, a desired angular velocity {dot over (q)}.sub.d of output axles of the joint transmissions, a desired angular acceleration {umlaut over (q)}.sub.d of the robot transmission” [0111]. Thus, the controller receives a desired motion M.sub.d which includes desired angular position q.sub.d of the output axle, i.e., the joint.);
calculating a value of output torque for the joint using the first input and the second input (“Based on the angular position of the motor axle θ and the angular position of the output axle q, the joint transmission deformation Φ.sub.joint is determined by a joint transmission deformation module 1190 based on eq. 3. … Based on the joint transmission deformation and the time-derivative of the joint transmission deformation, the joint torque τ.sub.J is obtained by a joint torque obtaining module 1192 based on eq. 4” [0098]. Thus, Equations 3 and 4 provide the necessary calculations for deriving the joint torque, i.e., output torque, using the angular position of the motor axle, i.e., first input, and the angular position of the output axle, i.e., the second input.);
calculating, using the value of output torque and … the first and the third input, a value of input torque to be applied to the joint in the surgical robot by the drive source (See Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0106-0108] which describe calculations for the desired motor torque, i.e., a value of input torque, which is applied to control the robot via the motor, i.e., drive source. These calculations are based on variables M.sub.d inclusive of the third input (desired angular position q.sub.d of the transmission), the first input (angular position θ of the motor axle), and additionally the value of output torque (τ.sub.J). Examiner will additionally rely on Fig. 9 which provides a more sophisticated method in determining the resulting motor torque relying on the same such variables in making this determination.); and
controlling the drive source responsive to the value of input torque such that the input torque is applied to the joint in the surgical robot by the drive source (“The joint motor 209 is configured to rotate the motor axle by applying a motor torque to the motor axle as known in the art of motor control, for instance based on a motor control signal 233 indicating the torque, τ.sub.control applied by the motor axle, for instance by driving the joint motor with a motor current i.sub.motor proportional with a motor torque” [0042]. “The motor current controller may be provided as any motor control driver driving and controlling motors base on a desired torque. Typically, such motor control drivers generate signal indicative of the current to be provided to the motor coil” [0194]. Thus, the motor, i.e., drive source, is controlled in response to the value of input torque, i.e., the resulting motor torque, such that the input torque is applied to the robot joint by the motor via the resulting motor control current.).
However, Madsen is silent to the teaching in which the value of input torque to be applied to the joint is calculated using …a value which is a difference between the first input and the third input… In the analysis of Fig. 9 in which torque errors are used to determine the resulting motor torque to be applied to controlling the motor, Examiner ascertains that τ.sub.m,torque-err is calculated based on the difference between a desired transmission torque and an actual transmission torque, and additionally τ.sub.m,err is calculated based on “minimizing errors between at least one of: … a desired angular position Θ.sub.d of the motor axle and the angular position Θ of the motor axle” ([0153], [0158]). Thus, the errors are each calculated based on the transmission torque (output torque) and at least a difference including a desired angular position of the motor axle (not used by Applicant) and the actual angular position of the motor axle (first input).
De Luca, in the same field of endeavor, provides more detailed mathematical analyses for determining dynamics and control models for robots with flexible joints. Similar such calculations for determining an input torque using full-state feedback are shown in Equations 11.53 and 11.54 (see Page 261). In addition to such equations, Page 250 provides the equation used to determine the desired transmission torque at the joint, τ.sub.J,d, which directly relates the desired angular position Θ.sub.d of the motor axle with the desired angular position of the joint q.sub.d, and determines that the quantity can additionally be expressed as differentiable values of those desired variables.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the determination of τ.sub.m,err as taught by Madsen to include a variable substitution of Θ.sub.d in terms of q.sub.d and τ.sub.J,d scaled for the spring constant of the robotic joint transmission as taught by De Luca with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a substitution would determine a minimization of errors between q.sub.d (third input) and Θ (first input) as is contemplated by the instant application. Motivation for such a modification is determined to be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143.I(B)). Given that the same variables necessary to make this substitution are already determined/contemplated by Madsen, such a substitution is additionally an example of a design choice in which known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field (such as selected variables for determining the contemplated result) based on design incentives if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (substitution of variables is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art and thus predictable) (MPEP 2143.I(F)).
Claims 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen in view of De Luca and further in view of Ruderman et al. (“Modelling and Observation of Hysteresis Lost Motion in Elastic Robot Joints”, 2012; hereinafter “Ruderman”).
Regarding claim 13, Madsen as modified by De Luca (references made to Madsen) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1,
…where qi is the first input (Θ), qo is the second input (q), and kp is a spring coefficient of the drivetrain (“The stiffness K.sub.i of the spring indicates the transmission stiffness of the robot joint transmission” [0044]. Stiffness of the robot joint transmission is an equivalent to the spring coefficient of the drivetrain.)…
However, Madsen does not explicitly teach …wherein the value of output torque is represented by the equation To=kp(qi-q0)…
Equation 4 of Madsen provides an equation for output torque in terms of a flexibility torque and a damping torque. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that if the damping, D.sub.i, is zero, equation 4 would reduce to To=kp(qi-q0), in terms of the above defined variables in combination with equation 3 of Madsen. Thus, Madsen teaches the equation of claim 11 as equation 4 (see [0050]) in the absence of transmission damping.
Additionally, Madsen as modified does not explicitly teach … kp is selected from a discrete range of values, each value of kp being associated with a range of elongation values that are defined by one or more predetermined threshold values.
Given that Madsen teaches the equation of claim 13, Figure 6 of Ruderman (see Page 16), in which Ruderman also teaches a robot joint system with a harmonic drivetrain system, shows a graph modeling torque versus the elongation which is separated into three distinct regions via the inflection point of the curve with an upper and lower threshold value for separating such regions. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a linear estimation of the slope of the curve in each region would provide a discrete value for stiffness k unique to the three regions bounded by the thresholds given that the model of the system is the equation T0 = k(qi-q0). To elaborate further, if the relationship between T0 and (qi-q0) is linear, then the slope of the linear relationship would be a discrete value k.
Thus, Ruderman provides the necessary information in Figure 6 for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Madsen with the discrete values based on a range of elongation values separated by distinct thresholds. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification because doing so would simplify the computational efforts required to find nonlinear values for k at each step of the iterative calculation.
Regarding claim 14, Madsen as modified by De Luca and Ruderman (references made to Ruderman) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 13,
wherein the spring coefficient is selected from three distinct values in dependence on a measured elongation of the drivetrain (As noted above, Figure 6 provides three distinct regions in which the inflection points of the hysteresis curve are divided into what would be a piecewise linear estimate of the curve with a discrete/constant slope value which models the spring coefficient.), wherein:
a first value is selected for the spring coefficient if the value of measured elongation is below a first predetermined threshold (The first predetermined threshold is -0.5 degrees. The region less than -0.5 degrees of elongation has a first slope which is the first value selected for the spring coefficient.);
a second value is selected for the spring coefficient if the value of measured elongation is above the first predetermined threshold and below a second predetermined threshold (The second predetermined threshold is +0.5 degrees. The region between -0.5 and +0.5 degrees of elongation has a second slope (approximately zero) which is the second value selected for the spring coefficient.); and
a third value is selected for the spring coefficient if the value of measured elongation is above the second predetermined threshold (The region above +0.5 degrees of elongation has a third slope which is the third value which is selected for the spring coefficient.).
Regarding claim 15, Madsen as modified by Ruderman (references made to Ruderman) teaches the controller as claimed in claim 14,
wherein the range of elongation values that are above the first predetermined threshold and below a second predetermined threshold corresponds to a backlash region of the joint (The region between -0.5 and +0.5 represents a “region of loss”, which for a gear-based harmonic system is the region of backlash in which the lost motion is a result of the gap/clearance as the system transitions from negative output torque to positive output torque, and vice versa.).
Regarding claim 18, Madsen as modified by De Luca teaches the controller as claimed in claim 1.
However, Madsen as modified by De Luca does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is implemented within a dynamic torque observer, the dynamic torque observer being configured to calculate a value of dynamic torque by applying a weighting to the value of output torque calculated by the controller.
Ruderman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is implemented within a dynamic torque observer, the dynamic torque observer being configured to calculate a value of dynamic torque by applying a weighting to the value of output torque calculated by the controller (“The first order nonlinear differential equation (2) provides a dynamic torsion-torque map, where the output torque T(t) drives afterwards the robot joint load…. The weighting coefficient 0<w<1 provides the relation between a purely elastic w=1 and purely hysteretic w=0 (also denoted as plastic) response” (Page 16). Thus, there exists a dynamic torque, displayed on the dynamic torsion-torque map, which applies a weighting in the calculation of the output torque T(t), provided by Equation 3.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the calculations of output torque as taught by Madsen to include the weighting of the output torque as taught by Ruderman with a reasonable expectation for success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because predicting dynamic torsion-torque with the virtual sensor of Ruderman will reduce the overall cost of the system (Ruderman, Page 17).
Conclusion
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 SIDNEY L MOLNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-2276. The examiner can normally be reached 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jonathan (Wade) Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/S.L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656