+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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment filed on 02/03/2023. Per the amendment, claims 1-3, 5, and 7-14 are as previously presented, and claims 4, 6, and 15-16 are as currently amended. As such, claims 1-16 are pending in the instant application. Amendments to the abstract and specification have been considered and are entered in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show and explicitly identify the ankle joint motor, the rotating shaft of the ankle joint motor, the cantilever, the scale marks disposed on the cantilever, the load weights, the foot pedal , and further structures of the rehabilitation robot as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 13: “the linear moment interval” should read “the linear moment intervals” for consistency
Claim 4, lines 5-6: “the moment interval” should read “a moment interval” to establish antecedent basis
Claim 10, line 11: “a preset standard deviation” should read “a preset standard deviation.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the conversion relationships” in lines 7 and 9. It is unclear if this is in reference to the conversion relationship recited in line 4 of claim 1, or if Applicant was attempting to disclose a new limitation. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation will be interpreted as – a plurality of the conversion relationship recited in line 4 of claim 1.
Claims 2-12, 15, and 16 are rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of claims 1-16 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of claims 1-16 recites at least one step or instruction for organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations and conversions, which is grouped as a mathematical concept. The claimed limitations involve the use of a conversion relationship to and corresponding relationships between current data and the conversion relationships to manipulate the gathered data, which is one of mathematical concepts under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of claims 1-16 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “acquiring a to-be-processed current data; searching for a conversion relationship corresponding to the to-be-processed current data from a pre-stored current conversion relationship table based on the to-be-processed current data, wherein the current conversion relationship table stores at least one set of corresponding relationships between current data and the conversion relationships; and converting the to-be-processed current data into a corresponding target moment using the conversion relationships” (Examiner Note: where the bolded limitations of claim 1 above are additional elements, and the underlined limitations of claim 1 above are abstract ideas).
Specifically, claim 13 recites “a data acquisition module, configured to acquire a to-be-processed current data; a conversion relationship determination module, configured to search for a conversion relationship corresponding to the to-be-processed current data from a pre-stored current conversion relationship table based on the to-be-processed current data, wherein the current conversion relationship table stores at least one set of corresponding relationships between current data and the conversion relationship; and a data conversion module, configured to convert the to-be-processed current data into a corresponding target moment using the conversion relationships” (Examiner Note: where the bolded limitations of claim 1 above are additional elements, and the underlined limitations of claim 13 above are abstract ideas).
Specifically, claim 14 recites “[a] rehabilitation robot, configured with the device for converting a current and a moment according to claim 13” (see additional elements and abstract ideas recited in claim 13 above) (Examiner Note: where the bolded limitations of claim 1 above are additional elements, and the underlined limitations of claim 14 above are abstract ideas).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent claims 2-12 and 15-16 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1, 13, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims 2-12 and 15-16) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent claims 1, 13, and 14), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: acquiring to-be-processed current data and a current conversion table as recited in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims; a data acquisition module, acquiring to-be-processed current data, a conversion relationship determination module, a current conversion table, and a data conversion module as recited in independent claim 13; and a rehabilitation robot and a device as recited in claim 14 are generically recited computer elements in independent claims 1, 13, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 13, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mathematical concept) using rules (e.g., computer/control instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1, 13, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 13, and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of claims 1-16 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: acquiring to-be-processed current data and a current conversion table as recited in independent claim 1 and its dependent claims; a data acquisition module, acquiring to-be-processed current data, a conversion relationship determination module, a current conversion table, and a data conversion module as recited in independent claim 13; and a rehabilitation robot and a device as recited in claim 14.
Per Applicant’s specification, a processor implements the method of converting a current and a moment (see [0133] of PGPub US 2025/0120870 A1), and discloses the processor may be a conventional processor (see [0137] and Fig. 6 of PGPub US 2025/0120870 A1).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “a device” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the acquisition of to-be-processed current data, current conversion table, data acquisition module, data conversion module, conversion relationship module, or rehabilitation robot. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1-16 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the methods and apparatuses of claims 1-16 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mathematical concept) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of claims 1-16 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 13, and 14 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, claims 1-16 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the claims 1-16 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, claims 1-16 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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 1, 5-6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy et al. (US 20150141878 A1), hereinafter Roy.
Regarding claim 1, Roy discloses a method for converting a current and a moment, applied to a controller of a rehabilitation robot, wherein the method comprises steps of:
acquiring a to-be-processed current data (measured current output data from footswitches 425 sent from motor 314 to controller 140, where the measured output data from footswitches 425 can be current or voltage; [0084] and second to last sentence of [0059]);
searching for a conversion relationship corresponding to the to-be-processed current data from a pre-stored current conversion relationship table based on the to-be-processed current data (use table 1502, stored in module 1500, to find a corresponding current movement phase based on the measured current output data from footswitches 425; Figs. 4B and 15; [0084]), wherein the current conversion relationship table (table 1502; Figs. 4B and 15) stores at least one set of corresponding relationships between current data and the conversion relationships (table 1502 stores sets of pre-stored values of angle trace of a normal subject 1102, angle trace of an impaired subject 1104, and deficit angle 1106 stored in module 1500, where the sets of pre-stored angle trace and angle deficit values correspond to a movement phase; Figs. 4B and 15; [0084]); and
converting the to-be-processed current data into a corresponding target moment using the conversion relationships (the measured current output data from footswitches 425 determines the current movement phase, see [0084]; the pre-stored values of angle trace of a normal subject 1102, angle trace of an impaired subject 1104, and deficit angle 1106 that correspond to the current movement phase are retrieved, see [0084] and [0086]; the magnitude of torque required to be applied by anklebot 300 is determined based, at least in part, on the angle deficit 1106, see [0086] and [0087]).
Regarding claim 5, Roy discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the step of searching for a conversion relationship corresponding to the to-be-processed current data from a pre-stored current conversion relationship table (see claim 1 above) comprises steps of:
searching for a current value range to which the to-be-processed current data belongs from the pre-stored current conversion relationship table (search table 1502 for a corresponding current value range that corresponds with the measured current output data of footswitches 425, where each movement phase has a corresponding current value range, see Fig. 4B; [0084] and [0086]); and
determining the conversion relationship corresponding to the found current value range (determine the pre-stored values of angle trace of a normal subject 1102, angle trace of an impaired subject 1104, and deficit angle 1106 that correspond to the current movement phase, where the determined current movement phase corresponds to the determined current value range; [0084] and [0086]) as the conversion relationship corresponding to the to-be-processed current data (the pre-stored values of angle trace of a normal subject 1102, angle trace of an impaired subject 1104, and deficit angle 1106 that correspond to the current movement phase also correspond to the measured current output data; [0084] and [0086]).
Regarding claim 6, Roy discloses the invention as set forth in claim 1, wherein the step of converting the to-be-processed current data into a corresponding target moment using the conversion relationships (see claim 1 above) comprises steps of:
generating a linear expression of a conversion between the current and the moment according to the conversion relationship (Equation 5 is generated and is a linear expression, see [0087]; current is converted to torque based on, at least in part, the determined current movement phase correlated to the current and the pre-stored value of the deficit angle 1106 correlated to the determined movement phase, where Equation 5 uses the pre-stored deficit angle 1106 correlated to the determined movement phase to calculate torque, see [0086]-[0087], hence Equation 5 is a conversion between current and torque as the measured current output data); and
converting the to-be-processed current data into a corresponding target moment through the linear expression (the measured current output data correlates to a current movement phase, where the current movement phase has the corresponding pre-stored values of angle trace of a normal subject 1102, angle trace of an impaired subject 1104, and deficit angle 1106, where the angle deficit 1106 is used in Equation 5 to determine the anklebot applied torque 1514, see Equation 5, see [0087]).
Regarding claim 16, Roy discloses the invention as set forth in claim 5, wherein the step of converting the to-be-processed current data into a corresponding target moment using the conversion relationships (see claim 1 above) comprises steps of:
generating a linear expression of a conversion between the current and the moment according to the conversion relationship (Equation 5 is generated and is a linear expression, see [0087]; current is converted to torque based on, at least in part, the determined current movement phase correlated to the current and the pre-stored value of the deficit angle 1106 correlated to the determined movement phase, where Equation 5 uses the pre-stored deficit angle 1106 correlated to the determined movement phase to calculate torque, see [0086]-[0087], hence Equation 5 is a conversion between current and torque as the measured current output data); and
converting the to-be-processed current data into a corresponding target moment through the linear expression (the measured current output data correlates to a current movement phase, where the current movement phase has the corresponding pre-stored values of angle trace of a normal subject 1102, angle trace of an impaired subject 1104, and deficit angle 1106, where the angle deficit 1106 is used in Equation 5 to determine the anklebot applied torque 1514, see Equation 5, see [0087]).
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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US 20150141878 A1), hereinafter Roy, in view of Song & Chien (US 20190336383 A1), hereinafter Song.
Regarding claim 13, Roy discloses a device for converting a current and a moment (drive module 1500; Fig. 15; [0084]), applied to a controller of a rehabilitation robot (drive module 1500 applied to controller 140 of anklebot 300; Fig. 15; [0045], where module 1500 is a specific embodiment of module 150), wherein the device (drive module 1500; Fig. 15; [0084]) comprises:
a data acquisition module (footswitches 425; Figs. 4B and 15; [0084], lines 9-11, where collective voltage 420 may be collective current instead, see [0059]), configured to acquire a to-be-processed current data (collective current output data acquired via footswitches 425; [0084] and second to last sentence of [0059]); and
a conversion relationship determination module (reference module 1506, where reference module 1506 is the memory of drive module 1500; last two sentences of [0084]), configured to search for a conversion relationship corresponding to the to-be-processed current data from a pre-stored current conversion relationship table based on the to-be-processed current data (use table 1502, which is stored in the reference module 1506 of the drive module 1500, to find a corresponding current movement phase based on the measured current output data from footswitches 425, where the reference module 1506 stores predetermined voltage and/or current thresholds for each movement phase, see [0062]; Figs. 4B and 15; [0084]) , wherein the current conversion relationship table (table 1502; Fig. 15) stores at least one set of corresponding relationships between current data and the conversion relationship (table 1502 stores sets of pre-stored values of angle trace of a normal subject 1102, angle trace of an impaired subject 1104, and deficit angle 1106 stored in module 1500, where the sets of pre-stored angle trace and angle deficit values correspond to a movement phase; Figs. 4B and 15; [0084]).
Roy further discloses the drive module (1500) utilizing data stored within the reference module 1506 to determine a magnitude of torque required to be applied by anklebot (300; [0086] and [0087]). But Roy fails to explicitly disclose a data conversion module with this function.
However, Song teaches a movement assistance system and method with a controller, where the controller implements a variety of modules, wherein the variety of modules includes an assistive torque generation module (230; Fig. 2; [0020]) to calculate a desired torque using an equation ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controller (140) taught by Roy to explicitly include a module to calculate the magnitude of torque required to be applied to the anklebot, such as the assistive torque generation module (230) taught by Song, such that the controller (140) as now modified by Song can implement an assistive torque generation module (Song 230, where the equation used by Song 230 is Equation 5 taught by Roy; Song [0020]) to convert the to-be-processed current data into a corresponding target moment using the conversion relationships (Song 230 receives the measured current output data and the pre-stored values of angle trace of a normal subject 1102, angle trace of an impaired subject 1104, and deficit angle 1106 that correspond to a current movement phase, and calculates the magnitude of the torque required to be applied by the anklebot 300 via Equation 5; Song [0020], Song [0042], Roy [0084], and Roy [0086]-[0087]) to provide sufficient torque via the anklebot and assist the user during various activities (Song [0021] and [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, Roy as modified by Song (see claim 13 above) teaches a rehabilitation robot (anklebot 300; Fig. 3), configured with the device for converting a current and a moment according to claim 13 (drive module 1500 as modified by Song, see claim 13 above, where anklebot 300 includes drive module 1500, see last sentence of [0086]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7-12, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Roy et al. (US 20150141878 A1), the closest prior art of record, discloses a method for converting a current and a moment, applied to a controller of a rehabilitation robot, as disclosed in claim 1 above (see claim 1 above), but fails to disclose, teach, or render obvious wherein an ankle joint motor of the rehabilitation robot is configured with load weights, and the method further comprises steps of:
collecting a plurality of current data generated after the load weights are placed on the ankle joint motor;
calculating a moment data corresponding to the current data generated by each of the load weights according to a pre-stored mass data of the load weights and a moment calculation formula;
generating a current and moment curve based on the current data and the moment data corresponding to the current data;
extracting a plurality of linear moment intervals in the current and moment curve;
calculating a slope value of each of the linear moment intervals, and saving the slope value as a conversion relationship corresponding to the linear moment interval; extracting current value ranges of the linear moment intervals on the current and moment curve; and
associating and saving the current value ranges and the conversion relationships, so as to generate the current conversion relationship table.
However, Zhang et al. (CN 112405615 A) teaches a robot end load mass detection method which generates correlation functions between measured real-time currents of a drive motor (Ibji) and loads of known weights (Xbi), where the loads of known weights (Xbi) are loaded onto an end-effector of a robot and the corresponding real-time current (Ibji) for each of the loads of known weight (Xbi) are obtained ([0038], see provided translation). Zhang further teaches the corresponding real-time current (Ibji) for each of the loads of known weight (Xbi) are summed for each of the joint axis drive motors corresponding to each load of known weight (Xbi) loaded to calculate the real-time current (Ibzi) corresponding to each load of known weight (Xbi), where the real-time current (Ibzi) corresponding to each load of known weight (Xbi) is used to determine a real-time quality of each load of known weight (M), where the real-time quality of each load of known weight (M) can be plugged into the equation
I
s
z
=
K
M
+
b
to determine the torque (Isz) for each of the real-time currents (Ibzi; [0037]-[0038], see provided translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Roy with the above method taught by Zhang such that Roy, as modified, teaches an ankle joint motor (314; Fig. 3) of the rehabilitation robot (anklebot 300; Fig. 3) is configured with load weights (loads of known weight Xbi taught by Zhang; Zhang [0038], see provided translation), and the method further comprises steps of:
collecting a plurality of current data generated after the load weights are placed on the ankle joint motor (collect real-time currents of a drive motor (Ibji) for loads of known weights (Xbi), as taught by Zhang, and place weights on motor 314 of Roy; Zhang [0038], see provided translation); and
calculating a moment data corresponding to the current data generated by each of the load weights according to a pre-stored mass data of the load weights and a moment calculation formula (determine real-time quality of each load of known weight (M) based on the real-time currents of a drive motor (Ibji) generated by each of the load of known weight (Xbi), and calculate torque (Isz) for each of the real-time currents (Ibji) using the equation
I
s
z
=
K
M
+
b
, as taught by Zhang; Zhang [0038], see provided translation) to avoid the requirement of torque sensors for the robot, reducing the robot design cost (Zhang [0024], see provided translation).
While Zhang does not explicitly teach generating a current and moment curve based on the current data and the moment data corresponding to the current data, Zhang does teach a correlation acquisition unit that stores the real-time currents (Ibzi) and the correlated load of known weight (Xbi; [0041], see provided translation), and the method of curve fitting the above data to derive the correlation function between the real-time currents (Ibzi) and the loads of known weights (Xbi; [0008] and [0041], see provided translation). Hence, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store the calculated torque (Isz) for each of the real-time currents correlated to a load of known weight in the correlation acquisition unit to generate a current and torque curve based on the real-time current data and the calculated torque data corresponding to the real-time current data (see [0008] and [0041] of the provided translation of Zhang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Roy with Zhang such that an ankle joint motor (314; Fig. 3) of the rehabilitation robot (anklebot 300; Fig. 3) is configured with load weights (loads of known weight Xbi taught by Zhang; Zhang [0038], see provided translation), and the method further comprises steps of:
collecting a plurality of current data generated after the load weights are placed on the ankle joint motor (collect real-time currents of a drive motor (Ibji) for loads of known weights (Xbi), as taught by Zhang, and place weights on motor 314 of Roy; Zhang [0038], see provided translation);
calculating a moment data corresponding to the current data generated by each of the load weights according to a pre-stored mass data of the load weights and a moment calculation formula (determine real-time quality of each load of known weight (M) based on the real-time currents of a drive motor (Ibji) generated by each of the load of known weight (Xbi), and calculate torque (Isz) for each of the real-time currents (Ibji) using the equation
I
s
z
=
K
M
+
b
, as taught by Zhang; Zhang [0038], see provided translation); and
generating a current and moment curve based on the current data and the moment data corresponding to the current data (see [0008] and [0041] of the provided translation of Zhang) to avoid the requirement of torque sensors for the robot, reducing the robot design cost (Zhang [0024], see provided translation).
However, Roy as modified by Zhang fails to disclose, teach, or render obvious the method further comprising steps of:
extracting a plurality of linear moment intervals in the current and moment curve;
calculating a slope value of each of the linear moment intervals, and saving the slope value as a conversion relationship corresponding to the linear moment interval; extracting current value ranges of the linear moment intervals on the current and moment curve; and
associating and saving the current value ranges and the conversion relationships, so as to generate the current conversion relationship table, and therefore, is novel.
Claims 3-4, 7-12, and 15 depend from claim 2 and thus are found to contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Telepko (US 5255188 A): Regarding a controller for a continuous passive motion device with a current processing table.
Caputo et al. (US 10537283 B1): Regarding a method of calculating a torque measurement on a motor using the bridge voltage measured corresponding to various masses of free weights applied to the system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAYLE DALE whose telephone number is (571)272-1080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:45am to 5:45pm ET.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/ABIGAYLE DALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785