DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
National Stage Entry / Effective Filing Date
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/CN2020115815, filed on 17 September 2020. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims are 17 September 2020.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/RCE/Remarks
The examiner received request for continued examination (RCE) with remarks and amendments to the claims and specification on 17 November 2025 in response to the Final Rejection office action dated 20 August 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejection”, “outstanding objection”, “prior office action”, and the like). No new matter was entered.
Regarding the outstanding objection to the specification, the examiner notes that the applicant points to merely one instance where "arms" is used interchangeably with "link" through recitation of "at least one arms 110, 120, …, and 130." The examiner notes that an example of the word "arm" corresponding to a drawing component "link" is not considered an explicit redefinition. If applicant wishes not to correct instances of "arm" to "link", the examiner respectfully recommends (and will not object/reject as new matter) addition to the specification a brief comment such as "Throughout the disclosure, instances of the words "arm" and "link" may be used interchangeably", or similar. The examiner believes that the following may be useful for understanding why the examiner continues to insist some form of correction regarding “links” versus “arms”:
"Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1). It is therefore entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims." Phillips v AWH Corp. "However, conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court." Phillips v AWH Corp. See MPEP 2111 and MPEP 2173.03. Finally, see MPEP 2111.01.II.
Thus, a corresponding specification objection will be provided below.
Regarding the outstanding specification objection to paragraph [0046], the examiner notes that this informality has been appropriately addressed and withdraws the outstanding rejection.
Regarding outstanding claim objection for claim 11, the examiner notes that the noted informality has been appropriately addressed and withdraws the outstanding rejection.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, the examiner notes that applicant states on pages 9-10 of the remarks file dated 17 November 2025 "In the interest of expediency, Applicant amended claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-22 to obviate any issue as to the alleged indefiniteness in accordance with the Examiner's comments." However, the examiner noted the following 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues in the prior office action (very brief descriptions are provided in the interest of brevity):
Using "arm" and "link" interchangeably without providing explicit redefinition
Defining "kinematic data"
Describing what is meant by "group of sinusoid functions"
Describing what variable(s) in the sum of differences are being minimized
Describing structure in claim 11 for an apparatus claim
Describing in claim 11 how the "obtaining unit" obtains a real path, as "obtaining unit" has no corresponding structure and the specification provides counter-intuitive guidance.
The examiner respectfully notes that addition of the limitation pertaining to the obtaining unit in claims 1 and 11 does not correct each and every one of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections noted above.
Pertaining to 1), the examiner noted in the aforementioned remarks that one example of the use of "arm" is, respectfully, insufficient to be considered an explicit redefinition of a well understood term. The examiner recommends, at the very least (though recitation of "link" instead of "arm" is preferred), specification amendment as described further above.
Pertaining to 2), claims 1 and 11 now recite "…and an angular difference of the joint between the two consecutive time points in the kinematic data…". The examiner is interpreting the "angular difference" to be a part of, but not necessarily all of, what constitutes "kinematic data". As this provides a requisite for understanding what may be included in "kinematic data", this has been addressed and resolved. The examiner will continue to interpret this language broadly but withdraws the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Pertaining to 3), while the amendments and remarks do not address the aforementioned issue, the examiner performed another review of the specification, particularly paragraphs [0057-0058] and Figure [6] and determined that support is present. Per the disclosure of paragraph [0058], the applicant describes modeling the transmission for each joint as a Fourier-series-style collection of sine waves. Therefore, the corresponding outstanding rejection is withdrawn.
Pertaining to 4), the examiner notes that this has not been addressed/resolved. The examiner believes that applicant intent is for claim 5 to state "that a sum of differences between [data set/parameter 1] and [data set/parameter 2] is minimized." As it is currently recited, the examiner is unsure what differences are being minimized and cannot improperly import implicit teaching from the specification into the claims. Therefore, this rejection persists.
Pertaining to 5), claim 11 continues to recite an apparatus claim of a black box (apparatus) made up of other black boxes (units), as seen in Figure [8], for instance. The examiner recommends providing some form of explicit structure (such as: the units are contained in non-transitory memory and are executed by a processor, or the apparatus comprises a controller containing the sub-units, etc.); at this time, the claim will continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting components which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but do not provide a basis for understanding corresponding structure. Thus, this rejection persists.
Pertaining to 6), the examiner notes that a generic obtaining "unit" obtains a real path of the tip, but does not adequately describe how it does so. For example, clarification such as "an obtaining unit, being configured for obtaining a real path of a tip of the robot system from a sensor measuring kinematic data during directing a movement of the tip" would clarify this. However, this is not presented in the claim set at this time, and the examiner finds that one having ordinary skill in the art is not provided with the requisite knowledge to understand how the invention operates through obtaining critical data in the current presentation of the claims. Thus, the rejection persists.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that all issues are obviated and presents the corresponding persisting claim rejections below in addition to new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections, necessitated by claim amendment.
Regarding outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for signals per se, the examiner notes that this issue has been addressed. Therefore, all outstanding 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 102/103) rejections, the examiner agrees that the primary prior art reference of note does not, alone, anticipate the independent claims as now-presented in the amended claim set. Therefore, all outstanding prior art rejections are withdrawn. However, new prior art rejections, necessitated by claim amendment, are found below.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 17 November 2025. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19-22 are pending. Claims 2, 8, 12, and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims. All pending claims are rejected for the reasons presented below.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Use of the term “arm” interchangeably with the term “link” when the art-understood meaning of “arm” generally refers to a plurality of interconnected links. See Specification paragraph [0002, 0005, 0016], for example.
The disclosure is further objected to because of the following informalities:
While looking for an explicit definition of "arm", the examiner found a typographical error in paragraph [0065], which recites "For example, transmission errors for the joints 110 and 120 may be generated…". The examiner believes that pieces 110 and 120 (which refer to the arms/links) were recited rather than joint 114 or missing a statement such as "the joints 114 corresponding to the arms/links 110 and 120".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The examiner notes that claims 1 and 11 recite "a time point in a plurality of time points". Any point in time would read upon this limitation. Further, the claims recite "consecutive time points" but do not list a step size. For example, a time point exactly one minute from a previous time point may be "consecutive" on a minute-by-minute basis but not on a second-by-second basis. As the term consecutive may be broadly interpreted, the examiner is considering any two data points at different times, unless otherwise explicitly disclosed, to be consecutive.
The examiner notes that claims 21 and 22 recite apparatus preambles while depending upon a method claim (claim 1), which is not necessarily improper as noted by MPEP 608.01(n).III.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Obtaining Unit: claim 11 and 20
Identifying Unit: claim 11 and 20
Determining Unit: claim 11, 20
Representing Unit: claim 11, 13
Aligning Unit: claim 11
Function Determining Unit: claim 11, 14
Defining Unit: claim 13
Generating Unit: claim 14
Solving Unit: claim 14 and 15
Parameter Solving Unit: claim 15
Kinematic Data Obtaining Unit: claim 16
Correcting Unit: claim 11, 19, 20
Directing Unit: claim 11
Offset Determining Unit: claim 19
Updating Unit: claim 19
Memory Unit: claim 21
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner further notes that, due to a lack of sufficient structure for any of the above claim limitations, that corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are provided below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 11 have amended a limitation in prior to first use of "kinematic data" and refers to it improperly as "the kinematic data", as "kinematic data" has not been established at this point in the claims. The examiner notes that, in order to avoid a lack of antecedent basis, "consecutive time points in the kinematic data" should remove "the" from the aforementioned section, and apply "the" prior to "kinematic data" in the now-second instance wherein "based on the path deviation and kinematic data associated" is recited. To be clear, the following two amendments are recommended: "consecutive time points in [[the]] obtained kinematic data" and "error of the joint based on the path deviation and the kinematic data associated with the movement".
Claims 1 and 11 state "based on a tip difference", however the examiner believes that the word "position" or "location" (or equivalent) is missing before the word "difference" per the description found in the specification paragraph [0051]. This appears to be a typographical error as "tip difference" implies some form of difference but does not state what the variable of concern (type of tip, orientation of tip, location of tip, etc.) is that is different. The examiner has determined that a claim objection would be more proper in this case rather than a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection per the description found in paragraph [0051].
Claim 1 mistakenly omits the word "and" following "an offset covered by a rotation of the joint;", such as that found in claim 11.
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, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19-22 (as independent claims 1 and 11 are rejected, the claims which depend upon them, that do not resolve noted deficiencies, are rejected by dependency) 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.
CONCERN 1: Claims 1 and 11: Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “arm” in claims 1 and 11 is used by the claim to mean “link,” while the accepted meaning is “plurality of interconnected links” (or the like). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. As noted above, the examiner recommends substituting “arm” for “link” in the claims or clarifying in the specification that the aforementioned terms may be used interchangeably.
CONCERN 2: Claims 5 and 15: Claims 5 and 15 recite the limitation "sum of the differences is minimized”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The term “differences” has no antecedent basis, so the examiner is unsure of what “differences” are being minimized. Claim 1 describes a deviation (a type of difference), but the Examiner is unsure that this is the intended meaning. The examiner believes that applicant is intending claim 5 to state "that a sum of differences between [data set/parameter 1] and [data set/parameter 2] is minimized." is intended. As it is currently recited, the examiner is unsure what differences are being minimized.
CONCERN 3: Claims 11-20: Claims 11-20 recite a number of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) terms, as noted in the above claim interpretation section. Paragraph [0071] and Figure [8] describe what constitutes the “apparatus”, specifying that it contains an obtaining unit, an identifying unit, and a determining unit. However, when attempting to locate structure for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) terms (units), no corresponding structure could be located aside from the aforementioned description. Therefore, a generic “apparatus” with no structure is described as comprising other generic “units” with no corresponding structure. Therefore, since the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) terms (units) do not contain sufficient structure alone or alongside the preamble, the apparatus claim is rejected for containing insufficient structure. The dependent claims (12-20) further provide generic units with no corresponding structure, and therefore do not resolve the deficiencies found in the parent claim. Thus, the examiner is unsure as to what physical invention is claimed through a system/apparatus claim if no structure is provided. Claim limitations regarding the “units” noted in the above claim interpretation section invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The examiner recommends providing some form of explicit structure (such as: the units are contained in non-transitory memory and are executed by a processor, or the apparatus comprises a controller containing the sub-units, etc.); at this time, the claim will continue to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reciting components which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) but do not provide a basis for understanding corresponding structure.
CONCERN 4: Claims 1 and 11 describe obtaining of data, but do not explain how the data is obtained. The applicant claims that a novel feature of the invention is through identifying a deviation between a real path and an ideal path for calibration. When attempting to understand the claimed subject matter from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the method of data collection impacts the accuracy of the deviation calculation. However, when reading through the specification, the examiner is unsure as to how the system obtains real path data, which again, is interpreted to be a significant/critical feature of the invention. Paragraphs [0040-0041] attempt to provide some clarification, wherein the applicant states “In some solutions, camera devices or other calibrating tools may be used to calibrate the robot system 100 and then remove the deviation between the ideal path 160 and the real path 150. However, the accuracy of the calibrated robot system still cannot reach a desired level. In order to at least partially solve the above and other potential problems, a new method for managing a robot path is provided according to embodiments of the present disclosure.”. Paragraph [0042] further states “Further, no calibrating tools are needed for determining the transmission error…”. Based on this description, the applicant appears to imply that, due to accuracy and cost concerns, using a camera or other tool to calibrate the robot system is insufficient. However, the applicant states in paragraph [0047] that “For example, a sensor may be equipped at the tip for collecting the real positions at each time point during the tip movement.”, which is counter to the previous paragraphs. Further, no mention of using the sensor in conjunction with an “obtaining unit” was found in the specification. Thus, one having ordinary skill in the art is not provided with the requisite knowledge to understand how the invention operates through obtaining critical data. The examiner notes that a generic obtaining "unit" (as recited in claim 11 with analogous rationale applying to claim 1) obtains a real path of the tip, but does not adequately describe how it does so. For example, clarification such as "an obtaining unit, being configured for obtaining a real path of a tip of the robot system from a sensor measuring kinematic data during directing a movement of the tip" (such as in the case of claim 11) would clarify this. However, this is not presented in the claim set at this time, and the examiner finds that one having ordinary skill in the art is not provided with the requisite knowledge to understand how the invention operates through obtaining critical data in the current presentation of the claims.
CONCERN 5: Claims 1 and 11 state "obtaining a real path of a tip" and, in the recently-amended claim limitation, "…to obtain a true path…". The examiner notes that a "real" path was established earlier in the claim and is unsure if the "true" path is supposed to be the real path (as in, it is a typographical error) or another path altogether. As the examiner is not completely sure if the term is a typographical error or not, the examiner chose to put forth a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection rather than a claim objection. The examiner believes that "…to obtain [[a true]] the real path…" is intended but will interpret the claim language for prior art purposes according to any (or more) of the noted interpretations.
CONCERN 6: Claims 1 and 11 attempt to clarify how the obtaining unit obtains a real path of the robot through obtaining “tip difference” and “angular difference”, neither explicitly from measured/actual data. However, while certain data inputs are discussed (tip difference from an ideal path and angular difference from kinematic data), it is not clear how real path data is obtained from the theoretical data presented. Put simply, while the examiner believes that applicant is obtaining kinematic data from sensor(s), the examiner cannot improperly import specification examples or belief of intent into the claims in order to ascertain how the invention operates. Currently, the claims do not say how the "real" data is obtained. In order to provide clear and precise claim language, the examiner strongly recommends adding some form of clarification for how the "real" data is obtained, such as through recitation of a sensor providing measured data. At this time, the claims recite determination of real path information from hypothetical data, which is counter-intuitive, leading to unclear claim scope.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above noted phrases are indefinite and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
As all independent claims (1 and 11) were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the dependent claims fail to cure every deficiency, all dependent claims are also rejected due to dependency. Therefore, all pending claims (1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19-22) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakilinejad et al. (NPL, “Identification and Compensation of Periodic Gear Transmission Errors in Robot Manipulators”, IEEE, Published 01 Feb 2019, provided with the prior office action as a PDF; hereinafter Vakilinejad) in view of Negishi (US 2015/0045954 A1; hereinafter Negishi).
Regarding Independent Claims 1 (method) and 11 (apparatus): Vakilinejad discloses A method for managing a robot path of a robot system, the robot system comprising at least one arm, and an arm in the at least one arm having a joint for rotating the arm, the method comprising: (per claim 1) / An apparatus for managing a robot path of robot system, the robot system comprising at least one arm, and an arm in the at least one arm having a joint for rotating the arm, the apparatus comprising: (per claim 11) (Section [III] and Figure [1, 2], Vakilinejad discloses a method/system for compensating for error in a robot by applying a compensated error model to a robot control scheme. Per Figures [1, 2] at least, the robot contains an arm with joints and links)
obtaining a real path of a tip of the robot system during directing a movement of the tip to follow an ideal path; […] (per claim 1) / an obtaining unit, being configured for obtaining a real path of a tip of the robot system during directing a movement of the tip to follow an ideal path; […] (per claim 11) (Section [II] and Figure [3, 4], Vakilinejad discloses that the robot is programmed to follow an optimal path (ideal path) and that the position of the end effector is measured throughout the trajectory, at least by a laser tracker (real path))
[…] identifying a path deviation between the real path and the ideal path; (per claim 1) / […] an identifying unit, being configured for identifying a path deviation between the real path and the ideal path; (per claim 11) (Section [II] and Figure [3], Vakilinejad discloses that the programmed joint values (ideal path) are subtracted from the actual joint values (real path), thus resulting in a deviation)
determining a transmission error of the joint based on the path deviation and kinematic data associated with the movement and a plurality of rotations of the joint respectively at a plurality of time points during the movement; (per claim 1) / a determining unit, being configured for determining a transmission error of the joint based on the path deviation and kinematic data associated with the movement and a plurality of rotations of the joint respectively at a plurality of time points during the movement; (per claim 11) (As noted above, the Examiner will put forth a best guess to the meaning of “kinematic data” to include any data pertaining to rotations of the joints within the robot arm. Section [II] and Figure [3, 7] and Table [II, III], Vakilinejad discloses that error is determined based on the subtraction of programmed joint values from actual joint values for a range of positions of the joints. For example, gear error is shown plotted against position in Figure [7] . Thus, error based on deviation associated with movement of the joint and joint positions (considered kinematic data) associated with rotation/position of the joint at a plurality of points)
wherein determining the transmission error comprises: representing the transmission error by a group of sinusoid functions, a sinusoid function in the group of sinusoid functions being associated with the plurality of rotations of the joint; (per claim 1) / wherein the determining unit comprises: a representing unit, being configured for representing the transmission error by a group of sinusoid functions, a sinusoid function in the group of sinusoid functions being associated with the plurality of rotations of the joint; (per claim 11) (Section [II.C], Vakilinejad discloses that a 3rd order polynomial is fitted to the error (representing error) and that the fitting process was carried out using Curve Fitting using a plurality of sinus functions for each joint (thus a group of sinusoid functions associated with the rotation of the joint))
aligning the transmission error with the path deviation according to the plurality of time points; and (per claim 1) / an aligning unit, being configured for aligning the transmission error with the path deviation according to the plurality of time points; and (per claim 11) (Section [II.C] and Figure [6], Vakilinejad discloses fitting the error to the polynomial, aligning (as seen in Figure [6]) the data with the plurality of positions/times)
determining the group of sinusoid functions at the plurality of time points based on the aligned path deviation and the kinematic data; (per claim 1) / a function determining unit, being configured for determining the group of sinusoid functions at the plurality of time points based on the aligned path deviation and the kinematic data; (per claim 11) (Section [II.C] and Figure [6], Vakilinejad discloses that the polynomial representing error is made up of plurality of sinus functions that are solved to best fit the obtained data (based on angle of the joints/kinematic data as shown in Figure [6]) and based on aligning/fitting the error data with the optimal trajectory)
correcting, by the transmission error, a path that is to be followed by the tip of the robot system; and directing a movement of the tip to follow the corrected path. (per claim 1) / a correcting unit, being configured for correcting, by the transmission error, a path that is to be followed by the tip of the robot system; and a directing unit, being configured for directing a movement of the tip to follow the corrected path. (per claim 11) (Section [II.D, III], Vakilinejad discloses performing compensation by eliminating error and directing the robot to follow the compensated control scheme)
Vakilinejad does not explicitly disclose the use of a Jacobian matrix to quantify a relationship between “tip difference” and “angular difference”.
However, Negishi, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, teaches wherein the obtaining comprises: determining, for a time point in a plurality of time points, a Jacobian matrix of the robot system based on a tip difference between two consecutive time points in an ideal path and an angular difference of the joint between the two consecutive time points in the kinematic data, the Jacobian matrix defining a ratio between an offset covered by a rotation of the joint; utilizing the Jacobian matrix to obtain a true path of the tip during movement of the tip of the robot system directed to follow the ideal path; (per claim 1) / wherein the obtaining unit is configured to: determine, for a time point in a plurality of time points, a Jacobian matrix of the robot system based on a tip difference between two consecutive time points in an ideal path and an angular difference of the joint between the two consecutive time points in the kinematic data, the Jacobian matrix defining a ratio between an offset covered by a rotation of the joint; and utilize the Jacobian matrix to obtain a true path of the tip during movement of the tip of the robot system directed to follow the ideal path; (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0068-0071], Negishi teaches modeling the kinematics of the robot; a Jacobian matrix is calculated from an applicable unit. Position and posture (angle and position) are sequentially (two plus data points in time) calculated from the joint and position of the tip is calculated. The unit multiplies the matrix (ratio) by the joint angle difference to calculate the next position)
Vakilinejad and Negishi are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Vakilinejad with the teaching of use of a Jacobian matrix model to determine path information of a robot (as taught by Negishi) as this constitutes a simple substitution of data acquisition of one type with another, with both having been known in the art prior to effective filing. Vakilinejad discloses the use of a sensor to determine real position/path of the tip. Merely substituting the means of actual path determination with the one disclosed by Negishi is considered an obvious variant of Vakilinejad. One would have been motivated to make this change in an effort to reduce calculation effort (Negishi, Paragraph [0071]) or number of needed parts (such as the discrete laser tracker sensor of Vakilinejad). Thus, the instant application and Vakilinejad merely differ by way of actual path detection/measurement, however the claimed form of measurement has also been established in the art and would have been obvious to substitute for the one found in Vakilinejad for the benefits described above.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad further discloses wherein representing the transmission error comprises: with regard to the sinusoid function in the group of sinusoid functions, defining the sinusoid function by an amplitude and a phase shift. (per claim 3) / wherein the representing unit comprises: a defining unit, being configured for, with regard to the sinusoid function in the group of sinusoid functions, defining the sinusoid function by an amplitude and a phase shift. (per claim 13) (Section [II.C] and Figure [6], Vakilinejad discloses that error properties including amplitude and phase difference (phase shift) are determined and presented in Tables [I, II, III])
Regarding Claims 4 and 14: Parent claims 3 and 13 are unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad further discloses wherein determining the group of sinusoid functions comprises: with respect to a time point in the plurality of time points, generating a formula based on a value in the path deviation and data in the kinematic data; and (per claim 4) / wherein the function determining unit comprises: a generating unit, being configured for, with respect to a time point in the plurality of time points, generating a formula based on a value in the path deviation and data in the kinematic data; and (per claim 14) (The examiner is interpreting this limitation to state that a formula is generated based on path deviation and kinematic data (joint angle data). Section [II.C] and Figure [6], Vakilinejad discloses a number of equations (such as Equation [3], as one example) that is generated based on path deviation and joint angles (kinematic data) that encompass a plurality of datapoints/times)
solving the amplitude and the phase shift based on formulas for the plurality of time points. (per claim 4) / a solving unit, being configured for solving the amplitude and the phase shift based on formulas for the plurality of time points. (per claim 14) (Section [II.C] and Figure [6], Vakilinejad discloses that error properties including amplitude and phase difference (phase shift) are determined and presented in Tables [I, II, III] based on the solved formulas/fitting of sinus functions)
Regarding Claims 6 and 16: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad further discloses with respect to a time point in the plurality of time points, obtaining the kinematic data based on an offset in the real path caused by a rotation of the joint at the time point. (per claim 6) / a kinematic data obtaining unit, being configured for with respect to a time point in the plurality of time points, obtaining the kinematic data based on an offset in the real path caused by a rotation of the joint at the time point. (per claim 16) (Section [II.C] and Figure [6], Vakilinejad discloses that data pertaining to the error (offset) is obtained at a plurality of positions/angles (rotation of the joint at the measured point in time))
Regarding Claims 7 and 17: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad further discloses wherein the ideal path relates to at least one direction in a coordinate of the robot system, and (per claim 7) / wherein the ideal path relates to at least one direction in a coordinate of the robot system, and (per claim 17) (Section [II.B] and Figure [5], Vakilinejad discloses that the ideal path relates to coordinates in X, Y, and Z directions (at least one direct))
wherein a frequency related to the plurality of time points is [higher than twice of a product of a frequency coefficient of any sinusoid function in the group of sinusoid functions being associated with the plurality of rotations of the joint and an angular speed of the joint.] (per claim 7) / a frequency related to the plurality of time points is [higher than twice of a product of a frequency coefficient of any sinusoid function in the group of sinusoid functions being associated with the plurality of rotations of the joint and an angular speed of the joint.] (per claim 17 (Section [I], Vakilinejad discloses recording data at approximate 3 second intervals)
The examiner submits that the frequency of data collection is an obvious matter of routine optimization covered under MPEP 2144.05; choice of frequency of data collection may depend upon a variety of factors (such as Nyquist frequencies, limitations of equipment used, etc.) that are obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to work around. Merely modifying the frequency of data collection is an obvious variant of the disclosure of Vakilinejad.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad further discloses wherein correcting the path comprises: with respect to a time point in the path, determining a path offset associated with a rotation of the joint at the time point; and updating, by the path offset, a point in the path at the time point. (per claim 9) / wherein the correcting unit comprises: an offset determining unit, being configured for, with respect to a time point in the path, determining a path offset associated with a rotation of the joint at the time point; and an updating unit, being configured for updating, by the path offset, a point in the path at the time point. (per claim 19) (Section [II.C, II.D, III], Vakilinejad discloses identifying an error (offset) at corresponding joint angles and performing compensation to remove the error)
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi in view of teaching reference MATLAB (provided with the prior office action and solely as a teaching reference; NPL, “Least-Squares Fitting”, NPL Date 31 Jul 2018).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15: Parent claims 4 and 14 are unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad further discloses wherein solving the amplitude and the phase shift comprises: solving the amplitude and the phase shift under a constrain that a sum of the differences being minimized. (per claim 5) / wherein the solving unit comprises: a parameter solving unit, being configured for solving the amplitude and the phase shift under a constrain that a sum of the differences being minimized. (per claim 15) (Section [II], Vakilinejad discloses that the fitting of data (including the determination of amplitude and phase as noted in prior claims) is made by using least square methods)
Provided solely as a teaching reference, MATLAB (NPL – Least-Squares Fitting) is provided to show that least square fitting is used to minimize the summed square of a difference between data (thus a sum of the differences being minimized). (Section [Introduction], MATLAB teaches that least square fitting is used to minimize the summed square of a difference between data (thus a sum of the differences being minimized)). MATLAB is provided solely as a teaching reference to provide clarity as to what constitutes “least square”, and therefore does not change the basis for rejection, nor is a rationale to “combine” necessary since it is serving simply in the capacity of providing a definition of a term. The purpose of MATLAB is to show that “least square” is analogous to “sum of differences being minimized”.
Claims 10 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vakilinejad in Negishi in further view of Bergantz et al. (US 2020/0324410 A1, Published 15 Oct 2020; hereinafter Bergantz).
Regarding Claims 10 and 20: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad further discloses obtaining a [further] real path of the tip during directing a [further] movement of the tip to follow a [further] ideal path; (per claim 10) / the obtaining unit being further configured for obtaining a [further] real path of the tip during directing a [further] movement of the tip to follow a [further] ideal path; (per claim 20) (Section [III] and Figure [1, 2], Vakilinejad discloses a method/system for compensating for error in a robot by applying a compensated error model to a robot control scheme. Per Figures [1, 2] at least, the robot contains an arm with joints and links)
identifying a [further] path deviation between the [further] real path and the [further] ideal path; (per claim 10) / the identifying unit being [further] configured for identifying a [further] path deviation between the [further] real path and the [further] ideal path; (per claim 20) (Section [II] and Figure [3], Vakilinejad discloses that the programmed joint values (ideal path) are subtracted from the actual joint values (real path), thus resulting in a deviation)
determining a [further] transmission error of the joint based on the [further] path deviation and [further] kinematic data associated with the [further] movement; and (per claim 10) / the determining unit being further configured for determining a [further] transmission error of the joint based on the [further] path deviation and [further] kinematic data associated with the [further] movement; and (per claim 20) (Section [II] and Figure [3, 7] and Table [II, III], Vakilinejad discloses that error is determined based on the subtraction of programmed joint values from actual joint values for a range of positions of the joints)
correcting, by the transmission error and the [further transmission error], a path that is to be followed by the tip of the robot system. (per claim 10) / the correcting unit being further configured for correcting, by the transmission error and the [further transmission error], a path that is to be followed by the tip of the robot system. (per claim 20) (Section [II.D, III], Vakilinejad discloses performing compensation by eliminating error and directing the robot to follow the compensated control scheme)
Regarding performance of a further (additional) iteration of error correction, Vakilinejad does not explicitly disclose the iterative performance of error correction.
However, Bergantz, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, teaches iterative error correction through identifying a further set of path data, determining a further set of error data, and performing a further corrective action to reduce error found in, for example, joints (Paragraph [0163] and Figure [10A-C], Bergantz teaches that error identification and correction may be an iterative process to, for example, isolate a component such as a joint for determination of error)
Vakilinejad and Bergantz are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control and calibration systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the error compensation method disclosed by Vakilinejad by performing the process an additional time as taught by Bergantz in the interest of performing a check to validate the first correction or determine if further corrective action is needed (Bergantz, Paragraph [0163]). This represents a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21: Parent claims 1 is unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad and Negishi disclose the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), but Vakilinejad does not explicitly disclose that the method is carried out on a computer processor coupled to a computer-readable memory unit containing instructions to perform the method.
However, Bergantz, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, teaches A system for managing a robot path, comprising: a computer processor coupled to a computer-readable memory unit, the memory unit comprising instructions that when executed by the computer processor implements the method according to [claim 1]. (Paragraph [0047] and Figure [11], Bergantz teaches that a controller containing a processor and memory are used to carry out instructions of the error compensation method)
Vakilinejad and Bergantz are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control and calibration systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the error compensation method disclosed by Vakilinejad by specifying the structure of the system performing the method as taught by Bergantz as these details are implicitly taught by Vakilinejad. The system of Vakilinejad controls a robot arm based on programmed input (Vakilinejad, Section [II], for instance). The programming of a robot by carrying out the instructions through use of a computer processor and memory is old and well-known; Bergantz is used as a reference to outline this (Bergantz, Paragraph [0047, 0183], for instance). Thus, the motivation to combine is to further specify how instructions are communicated to the robot manipulator, as taught by Bergantz. This combination represents a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Regarding Claim 22: Parent claims 1 is unpatentable over Vakilinejad in view of Negishi. Vakilinejad and Negishi disclose the method according to claim 1 (as shown above), but Vakilinejad does not explicitly disclose that the method is stored on a computer-readable memory unit containing instructions to perform the method.
However, Bergantz, in a similar field of endeavor of robot control, teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the method according to [claim 1]. (Paragraph [0047, 0132, 0178, 0180, 0183] and Figure [11], Bergantz teaches that a controller containing a processor and memory (including non-transitory memory) are used to carry out instructions of the error compensation method)
Vakilinejad and Bergantz are in a similar field of endeavor of robot control and calibration systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the error compensation method disclosed by Vakilinejad by specifying the structure of the system performing the method as taught by Bergantz as these details are implicitly taught by Vakilinejad. The system of Vakilinejad controls a robot arm based on programmed input (Vakilinejad, Section [II], for instance). The programming of a robot by carrying out the instructions through use of a computer processor and memory is old and well-known; Bergantz is used as a reference to outline this (Bergantz, Paragraph [0047, 0183], for instance). Thus, the motivation to combine is to further specify how instructions are communicated to the robot manipulator, as taught by Bergantz. This combination represents a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658