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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not
persuasive or moot.
Applicant argued on page 11 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “Cited References Do Not Disclose All Features of Independent Claims 1, 11 and 18”. The Examiner respectfully traverses. Roh teaches a robot comprising a communicator, driver, memory and processor. Roh depends on Racz in the rejection for the teachings of continuous control scheme, periodically sending commands with a specific frequency and the missing command detection based on a delay or loss of the command in a communication path of the robot ([0003], [0027], [0029], [0030], [0031]). Also, Roh depends on Chen in the rejection for the teachings of a threshold period of time between a point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs and a point in time preceding, by a pre-set interval, the point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs (Para [0079]). Roh further depends on Sahu in the rejection for the teachings of communication with an external device and matching of second driving data with at least a portion of the first driving data (Fig 1, Para [0019], Para [0052]). Therefore, the combination of the cited references anticipates the claim limitations.
Also, Applicant argues on page 13 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “Additionally, the portions of Racz cited to in the Office Action do not disclose that the data construed to be the "second driving data" is identified in Racz "based on a point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs." … In other words, this discussion of threshold times does not appear to be relevant, and there is no indication that the data construed to be the "second driving data" in the rejection is "identified" based on "a point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs." ”. The Examiner respectfully traverses. Racz teaches status messages enabling the robot controller to decide on a next action to be performed by the robot and the controller may send corresponding commands accordingly ([0027]). Racz also discloses continuous control scheme which periodically sends commands and when there is a missing command, the substitutional command may correspond to an expected or predicted instruction of the missing command ([0031] “The expected instruction may reflect an estimated (i.e., predicted) action which is to be performed next by the robot. This action may be estimated in consideration of an operation currently being performed by the robot (e.g., a movement along a certain trajectory) for which an action to be performed next in accordance with the continuous control scheme (e.g., a particular incremental movement as part of the certain trajectory) can be estimated, e.g., at least with a certain likelihood”, [0030] “In one implementation, the delay or loss of the command may be detected when the command is not received by a time which corresponds to the sum of an expected reception time of the command according to the predetermined communication scheme and a delay threshold value.”). Racz further discloses the predetermined time limit corresponding to a threshold value ([0037]).
Applicant further argues on page 14 of the Applicant’s Remarks that “Racz Fails to Disclose Identification of Third Driving Data ”. The Examiner respectfully traverses. Racz teaches that an action is to be performed next in accordance with the continuous control scheme ([0031]) and a continuous control scheme will include identification of third, fourth, fifth driving data and so on.
The same reasoning applied to the independent claims also apply to their corresponding dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (US 2018/0085281 A1) in view of Racz et al. (US 2020/0189100 A1) (Hereinafter Racz), Chen et al. (US 20090067551 A1) (Hereinafter Chen), and further in view of Sahu et al. (US 20150071061 A1) (Hereinafter Sahu).
Regarding Claim 1, Roh teaches a robot comprising:
a communicator ([0066] “The walking assistance device 400 includes a communicator 410, a processor 420, a driving portion 430, a storage 440, a joint angle sensor 450, a global positioning system (GPS) 460, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 470.”, [0073] “The storage 440 may store the data received by the communicator 410…”);
a driver configured to drive the robot ([0066] “The walking assistance device 400 includes a communicator 410, a processor 420, a driving portion 430, a storage 440, a joint angle sensor 450, a global positioning system (GPS) 460, and an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 470.”, [0072] “The driving portion 430 may operate based on the information on the torque. The driving portion 430 may generate an assistance force through a rotation of a motor. The driving portion 430 may correspond to the driving portion 110 of FIG. 1.”);
at least one memory configured to store at least one instruction ([0073] “The storage 440 may store the data received by the communicator 410 and the data processed by the processor 420. For example, the storage 440 may store a program.”, [0074] “The storage 440 may be a nonvolatile memory device, a volatile memory device, a non-transitory storage medium, or a combination of two or more of the above-mentioned devices. For example, the storage 440 may include one or more of a Read Only Memory (ROM), Random Access Memory (RAM), Compact Disk-Read Only Memories (CD-ROMs), magnetic tapes, floppy disks, and an optical recording medium.”); and
at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction ([0073] “The storage 440 may store the data received by the communicator 410 and the data processed by the processor 420. For example, the storage 440 may store a program.”, [0076] “The storage 440 may store an instruction set, for example, software, to operate the walking assistance device 400. The instruction set to operate the walking assistance device 400 may be executed by the processor 410.”) to:
However, Roh does not explicitly spell out …
receive first driving data from an external device in communication with the robot through the communicator and store the first driving data in the memory
control the driver to perform an operation based on the first driving data
identify, based on detection of an error in communication connection between the robot and the external device occurring, second driving data received by the robot from the external device within a threshold period, wherein the threshold period is a period of time between a point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs and a point in time preceding, by a pre-set interval, the point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs, and wherein the second driving data matches with at least a portion of the first driving data,
identify third driving data corresponding to the second driving data,
identify fourth driving data that is consecutive to the third driving data, and
control the driver to perform an operation after the point in time at which the error in communication connection between the robot and the external device occurs based on the fourth driving data received from the external device,
wherein the third driving data and the fourth driving data are received from the external device before the second driving data.
Racz teaches
receive first driving data … in communication with the robot through the communicator and store the first driving data in the memory ([0003] “…In cloud robotics systems, the control logic of the robot controllers is executed in the cloud and wireless connections are generally used to establish connectivity between the robots and the controllers. Typically, wireless connections are realized using wireless communication networks, such as LTE or 5G networks, for example.”, discloses robot controllers is executed in the cloud which is construed as robot receiving data through the cloud server which is considered as an external device, [0027] “The robot controller may be executed in a cloud (i.e., more specifically, in a cloud computing environment) and the robot may be a robot that communicates with the robot controller to exchange messages required for control of the robot. For example, the robot may send status messages to the robot controller, wherein a status message may contain information about the current physical state measured by sensors of the robot, such as joint positions, velocities, forces, currents, or the like. Status messages may enable the robot controller to decide on a next action to be performed by the robot and the controller may send corresponding commands, such as movement or velocity commands, to the robot to implement such action accordingly.”),
control the driver to perform an operation based on the first driving data ([0027] “The robot controller may be executed in a cloud (i.e., more specifically, in a cloud computing environment) and the robot may be a robot that communicates with the robot controller to exchange messages required for control of the robot. For example, the robot may send status messages to the robot controller, wherein a status message may contain information about the current physical state measured by sensors of the robot, such as joint positions, velocities, forces, currents, or the like. Status messages may enable the robot controller to decide on a next action to be performed by the robot and the controller may send corresponding commands, such as movement or velocity commands, to the robot to implement such action accordingly.”),
identify, based on an error in communication connection between the robot and the
external device occurring, second driving data received by the robot from the external device within a threshold period … ([0029] “By generating a substitutional command in the form of a command that corresponds to an expected instruction of the missing command and sending the substitutional command to the robot instead of the missing command, the concealment component 100 may ensure that the robot may not take notice of the missing command. The substitutional command may be denoted as an artificial command which is sent to the robot as a replacement of the missing command. The robot may process the substitutional command like any other command received from the robot controller and may not recognize that the actual command sent from the robot controller has been delayed or lost. In this way, continuous operation of the robot may be ensured.”, [0030] “The robot may be controlled using a continuous control scheme (as opposed to an event based control scheme, as described above) which may require commands to be sent from the robot controller to the robot in accordance with a predetermined communication scheme. For example, the predetermined communication scheme may require sending commands to the robot in predefined intervals, e.g., periodically sending commands with a specific frequency, such as 125 Hz in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. The delay or loss of the missing command, e.g., the fact that a command has not arrived in time, may then be detected based on verifying the receipt of commands on compliance with the predetermined communication scheme, such as on compliance with the 125 Hz requirement in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. In one implementation, the delay or loss of the command may be detected when the command is not received by a time which corresponds to the sum of an expected reception time of the command according to the predetermined communication scheme and a delay threshold value.”, [0031] “The substitutional command may be generated such that the substitutional command corresponds to an expected instruction of the missing command. The expected instruction may reflect an estimated (i.e., predicted) action which is to be performed next by the robot. This action may be estimated in consideration of an operation currently being performed by the robot (e.g., a movement along a certain trajectory) for which an action to be performed next in accordance with the continuous control scheme (e.g., a particular incremental movement as part of the certain trajectory) can be estimated, e.g., at least with a certain likelihood.”, [0033] “…In one particular implementation, the predicted control command value may be a delta value corresponding to a difference to a control command value of a previous command received by the robot from the robot controller, wherein the substitutional command may be generated based on the previous command and the delta value…”, discloses substitutional command may be generated based on the previous command and the delta value which is construed as second driving data matches with at least a portion of the first driving data, [0037] “The predetermined time limit may correspond to a threshold value and may be determined by the concealment component 100. In one implementation, the time limit may be determined based on a passive measurement which includes observing commands sent to the robot and determining a difference between the observed commands and corresponding substitutional commands for different prediction periods. In this case, actual commands received from the robot controller may be forwarded to the robot as usual (i.e., without any delay or loss) and the substitutional commands may be generated to check a command error by determining the difference between the observed commands and a corresponding substitutional commands (i.e., the substitutional commands are not sent to the robot in this case). The command error may reflect a difference in parameter values of the actual commands and the corresponding substitutional commands, wherein parameter values of the substitutional commands may be generated based on delta values produced by the machine learning based model, for example.”),
identify third driving data corresponding to the second driving data ([0029] “By generating a substitutional command in the form of a command that corresponds to an expected instruction of the missing command and sending the substitutional command to the robot instead of the missing command, the concealment component 100 may ensure that the robot may not take notice of the missing command. The substitutional command may be denoted as an artificial command which is sent to the robot as a replacement of the missing command. The robot may process the substitutional command like any other command received from the robot controller and may not recognize that the actual command sent from the robot controller has been delayed or lost. In this way, continuous operation of the robot may be ensured.”, [0030] “The robot may be controlled using a continuous control scheme (as opposed to an event based control scheme, as described above) which may require commands to be sent from the robot controller to the robot in accordance with a predetermined communication scheme. For example, the predetermined communication scheme may require sending commands to the robot in predefined intervals, e.g., periodically sending commands with a specific frequency, such as 125 Hz in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. The delay or loss of the missing command, e.g., the fact that a command has not arrived in time, may then be detected based on verifying the receipt of commands on compliance with the predetermined communication scheme, such as on compliance with the 125 Hz requirement in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. In one implementation, the delay or loss of the command may be detected when the command is not received by a time which corresponds to the sum of an expected reception time of the command according to the predetermined communication scheme and a delay threshold value.”),
identify fourth driving data that is consecutive to the third driving data ([0029] “By generating a substitutional command in the form of a command that corresponds to an expected instruction of the missing command and sending the substitutional command to the robot instead of the missing command, the concealment component 100 may ensure that the robot may not take notice of the missing command. The substitutional command may be denoted as an artificial command which is sent to the robot as a replacement of the missing command. The robot may process the substitutional command like any other command received from the robot controller and may not recognize that the actual command sent from the robot controller has been delayed or lost. In this way, continuous operation of the robot may be ensured.”, [0030] “The robot may be controlled using a continuous control scheme (as opposed to an event based control scheme, as described above) which may require commands to be sent from the robot controller to the robot in accordance with a predetermined communication scheme. For example, the predetermined communication scheme may require sending commands to the robot in predefined intervals, e.g., periodically sending commands with a specific frequency, such as 125 Hz in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. The delay or loss of the missing command, e.g., the fact that a command has not arrived in time, may then be detected based on verifying the receipt of commands on compliance with the predetermined communication scheme, such as on compliance with the 125 Hz requirement in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. In one implementation, the delay or loss of the command may be detected when the command is not received by a time which corresponds to the sum of an expected reception time of the command according to the predetermined communication scheme and a delay threshold value.”), and
control the driver to perform an operation after the point in time at which the error in communication connection between the robot and the external device occurs based on the fourth driving data ([0029] “By generating a substitutional command in the form of a command that corresponds to an expected instruction of the missing command and sending the substitutional command to the robot instead of the missing command, the concealment component 100 may ensure that the robot may not take notice of the missing command. The substitutional command may be denoted as an artificial command which is sent to the robot as a replacement of the missing command. The robot may process the substitutional command like any other command received from the robot controller and may not recognize that the actual command sent from the robot controller has been delayed or lost. In this way, continuous operation of the robot may be ensured.”, [0030] “The robot may be controlled using a continuous control scheme (as opposed to an event based control scheme, as described above) which may require commands to be sent from the robot controller to the robot in accordance with a predetermined communication scheme. For example, the predetermined communication scheme may require sending commands to the robot in predefined intervals, e.g., periodically sending commands with a specific frequency, such as 125 Hz in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. The delay or loss of the missing command, e.g., the fact that a command has not arrived in time, may then be detected based on verifying the receipt of commands on compliance with the predetermined communication scheme, such as on compliance with the 125 Hz requirement in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. In one implementation, the delay or loss of the command may be detected when the command is not received by a time which corresponds to the sum of an expected reception time of the command according to the predetermined communication scheme and a delay threshold value.”) …,
wherein the third driving data and the fourth driving data are received from the external device before the second driving data (See at least Para [0030] “The robot may be controlled using a continuous control scheme (as opposed to an event based control scheme, as described above) which may require commands to be sent from the robot controller to the robot in accordance with a predetermined communication scheme. For example, the predetermined communication scheme may require sending commands to the robot in predefined intervals, e.g., periodically sending commands with a specific frequency, such as 125 Hz in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. The delay or loss of the missing command, e.g., the fact that a command has not arrived in time, may then be detected based on verifying the receipt of commands on compliance with the predetermined communication scheme, such as on compliance with the 125 Hz requirement in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. In one implementation, the delay or loss of the command may be detected when the command is not received by a time which corresponds to the sum of an expected reception time of the command according to the predetermined communication scheme and a delay threshold value.”, discloses continuous control scheme which periodically sending commands and when there is a missing command, the subsequent commands arrive at their own time in the communication path which is construed as the third driving data and the fourth driving data being received before the second driving data, Para [0041] “… As indicated in the figure, both status messages and commands may be periodically send with a frequency of 125 Hz, following a continuous control scheme complying with the 125 Hz requirement of periodically sending commands and status messages in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Racz and include the feature of receiving, storing the first driving data, and controlling the driver to perform an operation accordingly, receiving second and third driving data based on an error in communication connection between the robot and the external device occurring within a threshold period based on a point in time at which the error in communication connection occur, identifying second driving data received by the robot from the external device, wherein the second driving data matches with at least a portion of the first driving data, controlling the driver to perform an operation after the point in time at which the error in communication connection between the robot and the external device occurs wherein the third driving data and the fourth driving data are received before the second driving data, thereby providing smooth control of the robot even after the interruption in communication from the external device occurs.
Chen teaches … wherein the threshold period is a period of time between a point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs and a point in time preceding, by a pre-set interval, the point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs (See at least Para [0079] “…for example those source data units that belong to a particular source block, or those source data units that are sent within a specified period of time… A variant of this method allows positions to be determined for a restricted set of possible source data units, for example those source data units that belong to a particular source block, or those source data units that are sent within a specified period of time.”), and …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Chen and include the feature of the threshold period being a period of time between a point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs and a point in time preceding, by a pre-set interval, the point in time at which the error in communication connection occurs, thereby keep track of certain data within a specific period of time which can be used later through pattern matching in case of data loss.
Sahu teaches … from an external device (See at least Fig 1 shows data transmission from one device to another) … wherein the second driving data matches with at least a portion of the first driving data (See at least Para [0019] “The determining of the transmission scheme may include determining a potential pattern of traffic and predicting next state data according to the determined potential pattern and determining the transmission scheme by using the next state data, wherein the next state data may include a queue size, a data rate, and an AC of data which is to be transmitted after the data transmitted by the data transmitting device.”, Para [0029] “The transmission scheme determination unit may determine a potential pattern of traffic, may predict next state data according to the determined potential pattern, and may determine the transmission scheme by using the next state data, wherein the next state data may include a queue size, a data rate, and an AC of data which is to be transmitted after the data transmitted by the data transmitting device.”, Para [0052] “The network may include a wireless network and a wired network. In particular, the wireless network may have a higher probability of network condition change and error occurrence than the wired network, due to signal intervention, attenuation, fading effects, etc. In this specification, errors may include not only data errors but also data loss during the performance of any kind of data communication. In other words, errors may include a case where data transmitted by a transmitting device is not transmitted to a receiving device as well as a case where data content such as a packet is wrong.”,) … received from the external device (See at least Fig 1 shows data transmission from one device to another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Sahu and include the feature of receiving data from an external device and data coming later matches with the previous data, thereby receive compensation for data loss which enables the robotic system to perform efficiently.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Roh teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Roh does not explicitly spell out the robot of claim 1, wherein each of the first driving data and the second driving data comprises information on at least one parameter for controlling the driver.
Racz further teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein each of the first driving data and the second driving data comprises an information on at least one parameter for controlling the driver ([0027] “The robot controller may be executed in a cloud (i.e., more specifically, in a cloud computing environment) and the robot may be a robot that communicates with the robot controller to exchange messages required for control of the robot. For example, the robot may send status messages to the robot controller, wherein a status message may contain information about the current physical state measured by sensors of the robot, such as joint positions, velocities, forces, currents, or the like. Status messages may enable the robot controller to decide on a next action to be performed by the robot and the controller may send corresponding commands, such as movement or velocity commands, to the robot to implement such action accordingly.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Racz and include the feature of at least one parameter for controlling the driver in each of the first driving data and the second driving data, thereby providing control of the robot precisely and accurately.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Roh teaches all the elements of claim 2.
However, Roh does not explicitly spell out the robot of claim 2, wherein the at least processor is
further configured to execute the at least one instruction to identify the second driving data based on the information on the at least one parameter comprised in each of the first driving data and the second driving data.
Racz teaches the robot of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to e
xecute the at least one instruction to identify the second driving data based on the information on the at least one parameter comprised in each of the first driving data and the second driving data ([0027] “The robot controller may be executed in a cloud (i.e., more specifically, in a cloud computing environment) and the robot may be a robot that communicates with the robot controller to exchange messages required for control of the robot. For example, the robot may send status messages to the robot controller, wherein a status message may contain information about the current physical state measured by sensors of the robot, such as joint positions, velocities, forces, currents, or the like. Status messages may enable the robot controller to decide on a next action to be performed by the robot and the controller may send corresponding commands, such as movement or velocity commands, to the robot to implement such action accordingly.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Racz and include the feature of the at least one instruction executed by the processor to identify the second driving data based on the information on the at least one parameter comprised in each of the first driving data and the second driving data, thereby providing control of the robot precisely and accurately.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (US 2018/0085281 A1) in view of Racz et al. (US 2020/0189100 A1) (Hereinafter Racz), Chen et al. (US 20090067551 A1) (Hereinafter Chen), Sahu et al. (US 20150071061 A1) (Hereinafter Sahu), and further in view of Ookoba (US 2021/0393467 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Roh teaches all the elements of claim 2.
However, Roh does not explicitly spell out the robot of claim 2, wherein the information on the at least one parameter for controlling the driver comprises information on a force that is applied to the robot and information on a time at which the force is applied to the robot.
Racz teaches the robot of claim 2, wherein the information on the at least one parameter for controlling the driver comprises information on a force that is applied to the robot (([0027] “The robot controller may be executed in a cloud (i.e., more specifically, in a cloud computing environment) and the robot may be a robot that communicates with the robot controller to exchange messages required for control of the robot. For example, the robot may send status messages to the robot controller, wherein a status message may contain information about the current physical state measured by sensors of the robot, such as joint positions, velocities, forces, currents, or the like. Status messages may enable the robot controller to decide on a next action to be performed by the robot and the controller may send corresponding commands, such as movement or velocity commands, to the robot to implement such action accordingly.”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Racz and include the feature of at least one parameter for controlling the driver comprises information on a force that is applied to the robot, thereby providing control of the robot precisely and accurately.
Ookoba teaches … and information on a time at which the force is applied to the robot ([0111] “On the other hand, when the deviation of the timing at which the characteristics appear is equal to or greater than the threshold value, the torque control unit 2122 performs the following processing. That is, the torque control unit 2122 calculates the reference model after a period change, in which the period indicated by the relationship between the torque and the time of the gait cycle indicated by the reference model is shifted so that the timing of the characteristics of the reference model matches the characteristics of the gait cycle calculated by machine learning. Then, in Step 5207, the torque control unit 2122 determines the motion and sets the parameters based on the relationship between the torque and the time indicated by the reference model after the period change. Thereby, the timing of the stance phase and the swing phase indicated by the reference model can be matched with the stance phase and the swing phase of the user's gait.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Ookoba and include information on a time at which the force is applied to the robot in order to include timing parameter with force control, thereby providing precise calculation of change in force in order to control the robot accurately.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (US 2018/0085281 A1) in view of Racz et al. (US 2020/0189100 A1) (Hereinafter Racz), Chen et al. (US 20090067551 A1) (Hereinafter Chen), Sahu et al. (US 20150071061 A1) (Hereinafter Sahu), and further in view of Endo et al. (JP2020089937A) (Hereinafter Endo).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Roh teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Roh does not explicitly spell out the robot of claim 1, wherein the at least one
processor is further configured to, execute the at least one instruction to:
receive, based on the error in communication connection between the robot and the external
device being resolved while the operation corresponding to the fourth driving data is performed, a fifth driving data from the external device through the communicator, and
control the driver to perform an operation after the error in communication connection between the robot and the external device is resolved based on the fifth driving data.
Racz teaches … a fifth driving data from the external device through the communicator ([0030] “The robot may be controlled using a continuous control scheme (as opposed to an event based control scheme, as described above) which may require commands to be sent from the robot controller to the robot in accordance with a predetermined communication scheme. For example, the predetermined communication scheme may require sending commands to the robot in predefined intervals, e.g., periodically sending commands with a specific frequency, such as 125 Hz in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. The delay or loss of the missing command, e.g., the fact that a command has not arrived in time, may then be detected based on verifying the receipt of commands on compliance with the predetermined communication scheme, such as on compliance with the 125 Hz requirement in case of a UR5 robot arm, for example. In one implementation, the delay or loss of the command may be detected when the command is not received by a time which corresponds to the sum of an expected reception time of the command according to the predetermined communication scheme and a delay threshold value.”, discloses command is periodically sent to the robot in predefined intervals which is construed as robot receiving fifth driving data at some point), ….
Endo teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, execute the at least one instruction to:
receive, based on the error in communication connection between the robot and the external
device being resolved while the operation corresponding to the fourth driving data is performed ([0077] “The work abnormality detection unit 2e transmits the robot program restart command and the robot program number set in the robot control device 2 to the work support device 3. The abnormality recovery unit 3k receives a robot program restart command and a robot program number via the communication unit 3i or the like, that is, when the work performed by the robot 1 shifts from an abnormality to a normal state, the robot 1 is remotely connected to the robot 1. Return operation. Using the remote control of the robot 1 as an example of recovery, the abnormality recovery unit 3k acquires the current state number corresponding to the received robot program number, and transmits the execution command of the robot program to the robot controller 2…”), … and
control the driver to perform an operation after the error in communication connection between the robot and the external device is resolved based on the fifth driving data ([0077] “The work abnormality detection unit 2e transmits the robot program restart command and the robot program number set in the robot control device 2 to the work support device 3. The abnormality recovery unit 3k receives a robot program restart command and a robot program number via the communication unit 3i or the like, that is, when the work performed by the robot 1 shifts from an abnormality to a normal state, the robot 1 is remotely connected to the robot 1. Return operation. Using the remote control of the robot 1 as an example of recovery, the abnormality recovery unit 3k acquires the current state number corresponding to the received robot program number, and transmits the execution command of the robot program to the robot controller 2…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Racz and include the feature of receiving a fifth driving data from the external device through the communicator in order to continue operation after communication error occurs, thereby provide enhanced flexibility in robot control.
Also, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Endo and include the feature of receiving based on the error in communication connection between the robot and the external device being resolved while the operation corresponding to the fourth driving data is performed, and controlling the driver to perform an operation after the error in communication connection between the robot and the external device is resolved based on the fifth driving data, thereby, providing smooth robot performance after error in communication between the robot and external device occurs.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (US 2018/0085281 A1) in view of Racz et al. (US 2020/0189100 A1) (Hereinafter Racz), Chen et al. (US 20090067551 A1) (Hereinafter Chen), Sahu et al. (US 20150071061 A1) (Hereinafter Sahu), and further in view of Yang (KR20170083829A).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Roh teaches all the elements of claim 1. Roh further teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein the robot is configured to be worn on a body of a user ([0046] “Referring to FIG. 1, a walking assistance device 100 is attached to a user to assist the user, for example, with walking. The walking assistance device 100 may be a wearable device.”), …
However, Roh does not explicitly spell out … and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: control the driver to perform an operation for assisting in a walk of the user while the robot is operating in a first mode, and control the driver for the robot to perform an operation for applying resistance to the walk of the user while the robot is operating in a second mode.
Yang teaches … and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: control the driver to perform an operation for assisting in a walk of the user while the robot is operating in a first mode, and control the driver for the robot to perform an operation for applying resistance to the walk of the user while the robot is operating in a second mode ([0008] “…When the load is equal to or greater than the load, activates the driving unit in an exercise assist mode for providing an additional driving force for the joint movement of the user, and when the exercise load is equal to or less than the exercise load according to information on the exercise intensity, Resistance is provided by the motion resistance mode.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Yang and include the feature of two different modes: one assistance in walking and the other one resistance in walking depending on the situation, thereby providing enhanced flexibility during walking assistance.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Roh teaches all the elements of claim 8. Roh further teaches the robot of claim 8, further comprising at least one sensor ([0017] “In some example embodiments, the walking assistance device includes at least one sensor configured to obtain walking information of a user;…”),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
control the communicator to obtain information on a walk of the user through the at least one sensor and transmit the information on the walk of the user to the external device ([0100] “Referring to FIG. 9, the device 810 in the form of the stick may include a sensor 912, a controller 914, and a communicator 916.”, [0106] “The communicator 916 may transmit the activation signal generated by the sensor 912 to the main device 305…”), and
… the information on the walk of the user ([0017] “In some example embodiments, the walking assistance device includes at least one sensor configured to obtain walking information of a user;..”)
However, Roh does not explicitly spell out … wherein the first driving data corresponds to …
Racz teaches … and wherein the first driving data corresponds to ([0030] “The robot may be controlled using a continuous control scheme (as opposed to an event based control scheme, as described above) which may require commands to be sent from the robot controller to the robot in accordance with a predetermined communication scheme…”)…
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Racz and include the feature of first driving data corresponding to the information on the walk of the user, thereby providing collection of data which will be used to control the robot.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (US 2018/0085281 A1) in view of Racz et al. (US 2020/0189100 A1) (Hereinafter Racz), Chen et al. (US 20090067551 A1) (Hereinafter Chen), Sahu et al. (US 20150071061 A1) (Hereinafter Sahu), Yang (KR20170083829A), and further in view of Endo et al. (JP2020089937A) (Hereinafter Endo).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Roh teaches all the elements of claim 1.
However, Roh does not explicitly spell out the robot of claim 1, wherein the robot is configured to travel, and the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain a map information comprising a path along which the robot moves,
store the map information in the at least one memory,
identify, based on an error in communication connection between the robot and the external device occurring, a position at which the robot is to stop based on the map information, and
control the driver to stop after reducing speed until the position for stopping is reached.
Yang teaches the robot of claim 1, wherein the robot is configured to travel, and the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain a map information comprising a path along which the robot moves ([0011] “The GPS module may further include a GPS module that receives the geographical location information and provides information on the current location to the control unit. The controller may display the information on the current location based on the received current location information and the stored or received map information…”),
store the map information in the at least one memory ([0011] “The GPS module may further include a GPS module that receives the geographical location information and provides information on the current location to the control unit. The controller may display the information on the current location based on the received current location information and the stored or received map information…”), …
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Yang and include the feature of obtaining and storing a map information of the path of the robot, thereby keeping track location information of the robot.
Endo teaches … identify, based on an error in communication connection between the robot and the external device occurring, a position at which the robot is to stop based on the map information ([0061] “Further, in the second embodiment, the work support apparatus 3 stops the transmission of data such as the robot program number to the robot control apparatus 2 when the communication abnormality detection unit 3j detects a communication abnormality.”, [0062] “The robot control device 2 saves the current position of the robot 1 when it does not receive the data from the work support device 3 at the fixed time intervals, that is, when the communication abnormality detection unit 3j detects a communication abnormality. The robot 1 is stopped.”), and
control the driver to stop after reducing speed until the position for stopping is reached ([0061] “Further, in the second embodiment, the work support apparatus 3 stops the transmission of data such as the robot program number to the robot control apparatus 2 when the communication abnormality detection unit 3j detects a communication abnormality.”, [0062] “The robot control device 2 saves the current position of the robot 1 when it does not receive the data from the work support device 3 at the fixed time intervals, that is, when the communication abnormality detection unit 3j detects a communication abnormality. The robot 1 is stopped.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Roh with the teachings of Endo and include the feature of stopping the robot at when communication error occurred between the robot and the external device, thereby providing safety around the robot.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, and 18 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Racz et al. (US 2020/0189100 A1) (Hereinafter Racz) in view of Chen et al. (US 20090067551 A1) (Hereinafter Chen), and further in view of Sahu et al. (US 20150071061 A1) (Hereinafter Sahu).
Regarding Claim 11, Racz teaches a method of controlling a robot, the method comprising:
receiving first driving data … in communication with the robot and storing the first driving data in a memory of the robot ([0003] “…In cloud robotics systems, the control logic of the robot controllers is executed in the cloud and wireless connections are generally used to establish connectivity between the robots and the controllers. Typically, wireless connections are realized using wireless communication networks, such as LTE or 5G networks, for example.”, discloses robot controllers is executed in the cloud which is construed as robot receiving data through the cloud server which is considered as an external device, [0027] “The robot controller may be executed in a cloud (i.e., more specifically, in a cloud computing environment) and the robot may be a robot that communicates with the robot controller to exchange messages required for control of the robot. For example, the robot may send status messages to the robot controller, wherein a status message may contain information about the current physical state measured by sensors of the robot, such as joint positions, velocities, forces, currents, or the like. Status messages may enable the robot controller to decide