Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/263,061 and amendments filed on 12/16/2025.
3. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-18, and 23-24 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/26/2023 and 9/23/2025 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1, 3-11, 13-18, and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner agrees that the combination of US 20050200324 A1 to Guthart, US 20160346928 A1 to Zhang '928, and US 20170361461 A1 to Tan fails to teach all of the limitations to the amended claim. However, in light of the amendments and the Applicant’s remarks, an updated search was conducted, and a new ground of rejection concerning claim 1 has been determined, in which will be described later.
Regarding independent claims 11, 23, and 24, as all of these claims contain similar limitations to claim 1, are still rejected for similar reasons claim 1 is, in which will be described later.
Regarding dependent claims 3-10 and 13-18, as all of these claims depend from either claims 1 or 11, are still rejected, in which will be described later.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 11, 18, 23, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthart et al. (US 20050200324 A1 hereinafter Guthart) in view of Park et al. (KR 102156655 B1 hereinafter Park (Note: Both the English and Korean translations of Park are included with this Office Action. Citations will be taken from the English translation unless otherwise stated.)), Shimodaira et al. (US 20160354925 A1 hereinafter Shimodaira), and Tan (US 20170361461 A1 hereinafter Tan).
Regarding Claim 1, Guthart teaches a robot teleoperation system ([0020] via “FIG. 1 illustrates, as an example of a telesurgical system, a Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgical (MIRS) system 100 including a Console ("C") utilized by a Surgeon ("S") while performing a minimally invasive diagnostic or surgical procedure ….”), comprising:
a master robot ([0021] via “The Console includes a support 102, a monitor 104 for displaying an image of a surgical site to the Surgeon, and one or more control devices 108 (also referred to herein cumulatively as a "master manipulator")”);
a slave robot ([0022] via “The Surgeon performs a procedure by manipulating the control devices 108 which in turn, cause robotic mechanisms 114 (also referred to herein as "slave manipulators") to manipulate their respective removably coupled instrument or tool assembly 110 (hereinafter simply referred to as a "tool") through a minimally invasive incision in the body of the Patient while the Surgeon views the surgical site through the monitor 104.”); and
a control system configured to cause the slave robot to follow a motion of the master robot ([0034] via “As the user 201 manipulates the master manipulator 108, the slave controller 203 translates its position from the coordinate frame of the master manipulator 108 to the coordinate frame of the tool 110. … Meanwhile, a master controller 207 feeds back any position error to the master manipulator 108 so that the master manipulator 108 tends to move in tandem along with the slave manipulator 114.”), ([0035] via “The functions of the slave controller 203 and the master controller 207 are implemented, for example, by programming them into a processor such as the processor 101 in the MIRS system 100.”).
Guthart is silent on wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a coefficient K; and determine a control force F output by the slave robot at a selected point on the slave robot based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between a reference point on the master robot and the selected point on the slave robot, wherein the selected point corresponds to the reference point; wherein the control system is configured to determine the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim, and configured to provide a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot, where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system; and wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow a motion of the master robot.
However, Park teaches to determine a coefficient K (Page 3 paragraphs 7-8 via “The virtual spring 110 is output as shown in the following equation, and is set as a special type of spring in which the magnitude of the force is limited. (Equation 3) here, [[e]] Is a position error between the position of the end of the virtual robot 100 and the target trajectory 1000 given by the user. [[K]] Is the spring constant determined by the user, [[D]] Is the damper constant, [[fcut]] Is the critical output of the virtual spring 110.”), (Note: See Equation 3 of Park within paragraph [0029] of the Korean translation, wherein Equation 3 is given as:
f
=
K
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
≤
f
c
u
t
f
c
u
t
e
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
>
f
c
u
t
. In this instance, the Examiner interprets the spring constant K of Park as the coefficient K.); and
determine a control force F output by the slave robot at a selected point on the slave robot based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between a reference point on the master robot and the selected point on the slave robot, wherein the selected point corresponds to the reference point (Page 3 paragraphs 7-8 via “The virtual spring 110 is output as shown in the following equation, and is set as a special type of spring in which the magnitude of the force is limited. (Equation 3) here, [[e]] Is a position error between the position of the end of the virtual robot 100 and the target trajectory 1000 given by the user. [[K]] Is the spring constant determined by the user, [[D]] Is the damper constant, [[fcut]] Is the critical output of the virtual spring 110.”), (Note: See Equation 3 of Park within paragraph [0029] of the Korean translation, wherein Equation 3 is given as:
f
=
K
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
≤
f
c
u
t
f
c
u
t
e
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
>
f
c
u
t
); and
to provide a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot (Page 3 paragraph 6 via “The virtual external force generated by the impedance control module 20 acts in a direction to induce the virtual robot 100 to be close to a target trajectory input by the user. Specifically, one side of the virtual spring 110 is connected to an end effector 150 that is an end of the robot, and the other side is configured to be connected to the target trajectory 1000. Accordingly, the direction of the force applied by the virtual spring 110 to the end effector 150 is a direction toward the target trajectory 1000. In other words, a force is generated to pull the end effector 150 toward the target trajectory 1000.”),
where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system (Page 4 paragraph 3 via “(Equation 5) The impedance control module 20 for calculating the external force using the above-described implicit method is a spring constant [[K]] Can be set very high, and through this, the virtual robot 100 in the dynamics simulation can follow the target trajectory 1000 with high accuracy in a section other than the kinematic singularity.”), (Note: See Equation 5 within paragraphs [0037] – [0039] of the Korean translation of Park as well.).
Further, Shimodaira teaches to determine the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim ([0096] – [0098] via “The control apparatus 3a substitutes the target force f.sub.St and the acting force f.sub.S in the equation of motion of the impedance control, and thereby, specifies a force-derived correction amount ΔS. The force-derived correction amount ΔS refers to a magnitude of the position S to which TCP should move for resolving a force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) from the target force f.sub.St when TCP is subjected to mechanical impedance. The following equation (1) is the equation of motion of the impedance control.
m
∆
S
¨
t
+
d
∆
S
˙
t
+
k
∆
S
)
t
)
=
∆
f
s
(
t
)
(1). The left side of the equation (1) is formed by a first term of multiplication of a second order differential value of the position S of TCP by a virtual inertia coefficient m, a second term of multiplication of a differential value of the position S of TCP by a virtual viscosity coefficient d, and a third term of multiplication of the position S of TCP by a virtual elastic coefficient k. The right side of the equation (1) is formed by the force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) obtained by subtraction of the real acting force f.sub.S from the target force f.sub.St. … The virtual inertia coefficient m refers to a mass that TCP virtually has, the virtual viscosity coefficient d refers to a viscosity resistance to which TCP is virtually subjected, and the virtual elastic coefficient k refers to a spring constant of an elastic force to which TCP is virtually subjected.).
Further, Tan teaches wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow a motion of the master robot ([0056] via “A task planning processor 302 receives an assigned task for the robotic machine assembly 102 to perform, such as to bleed the brakes of a vehicle. The task may be received from either a user interface 304 or the communication circuit 222.”), ([0057] via “The task planning processor 302, a manipulation processor 303, and a motion planning processor 312 may plan the performance of the assigned task. … The task performance plan further includes planned forces to be exerted by the robotic arm 210 on the target object to manipulate the target object, such as a planned pulling force and direction of the force on a brake lever.”), ([0067] via “The dynamic planning processor 318 is configured to receive feedback from one or more sensors during movement of the arm 210, and adjusts the generated forces based on the feedback to reduce discrepancies between the monitored movement and the planned movement of the robotic arm 210 according to the task performance plan. For example, the dynamic planning processor 318 analyzes the feedback to determine whether the robotic arm 210, in the performance of the task, exerts a pulling force on the target object that is (at least approximately) equal to the actuation force parameter received from the memory device 232 and included in the task performance plan.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Park wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a coefficient K; and determine a control force F output by the slave robot at a selected point on the slave robot based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between a reference point on the master robot and the selected point on the slave robot, wherein the selected point corresponds to the reference point; and to provide a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot, where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system. Doing so manipulates the relationship between the master robot and the slave robot using a known virtual mechanical-impedance method to optimize the control of the slave robot, wherein the position accuracy and the stability of the slave robot are optimized, as stated by Park (Page 4 paragraphs 3-4 via “(Equation 5) The impedance control module 20 for calculating the external force using the above-described implicit method is a spring constant [[K]] Can be set very high, and through this, the virtual robot 100 in the dynamics simulation can follow the target trajectory 1000 with high accuracy in a section other than the kinematic singularity. On the other hand, kinematic singularity means a'state' that cannot be reached kinematically rather than a single coordinate. In this singularity, additional power is not generated other than an external force by the impedance control module 20 so as not to diverge or stop the operation of the virtual robot 100. In addition, since the virtual spring 110 of the impedance control module 20 also has a limited output force as in Equation 3, the virtual robot 100 deviates from the target trajectory 1000 but exhibits a stable movement.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shimodaira wherein the control system is configured to determine the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim. Doing so calculates the correction amount to get the acting force enacted by the robot to the target force, as stated above by Shimodaira.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tan wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow a motion of the master robot. Doing so reduces the differences between the planned and actual forces exerted by the robot, as stated above by Tan in paragraph [0067].
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Guthart teaches the robot teleoperation system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to control an actuator of the master robot to provide tactile feedback to an operator operating the master robot based on the portion Fext ([0026] via “To this end, position, force, and tactile feedback sensors are preferably employed on the tools 110 to transmit position, force, and tactile sensations from the tools 110 back to the Surgeon's hands as he/she operates the control devices 108.”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Guthart teaches the robot teleoperation system of claim 1, wherein the selected point is on a slave end effector of the slave robot and the reference point is on a master end effector of the master robot ([0034] via “As the user 201 manipulates the master manipulator 108, the slave controller 203 translates its position from the coordinate frame of the master manipulator 108 to the coordinate frame of the tool 110. The slave controller 203 then determines the joint positions for the slave manipulator 114 that correspond to that tool position, and commands motors corresponding to each of those joints to move their respective joints to those positions using a closed-loop control system for each of the motors. Meanwhile, a master controller 207 feeds back any position error to the master manipulator 108 so that the master manipulator 108 tends to move in tandem along with the slave manipulator 114.”).
Regarding Claim 11, Guthart teaches a robot teleoperation method ([0020] via “FIG. 1 illustrates, as an example of a telesurgical system, a Minimally Invasive Robotic Surgical (MIRS) system 100 including a Console ("C") utilized by a Surgeon ("S") while performing a minimally invasive diagnostic or surgical procedure ….”), comprising:
acquiring a displacement of a reference point on a master robot and a displacement of a selected point on a slave robot corresponding to the reference point ([0034] via “As the user 201 manipulates the master manipulator 108, the slave controller 203 translates its position from the coordinate frame of the master manipulator 108 to the coordinate frame of the tool 110. The slave controller 203 then determines the joint positions for the slave manipulator 114 that correspond to that tool position, and commands motors corresponding to each of those joints to move their respective joints to those positions using a closed-loop control system for each of the motors. Meanwhile, a master controller 207 feeds back any position error to the master manipulator 108 so that the master manipulator 108 tends to move in tandem along with the slave manipulator 114.”); and
controlling the slave robot to follow a motion of the master robot based on the control force F ([0034] via “As the user 201 manipulates the master manipulator 108, the slave controller 203 translates its position from the coordinate frame of the master manipulator 108 to the coordinate frame of the tool 110. … Meanwhile, a master controller 207 feeds back any position error to the master manipulator 108 so that the master manipulator 108 tends to move in tandem along with the slave manipulator 114.”), ([0035] via “The functions of the slave controller 203 and the master controller 207 are implemented, for example, by programming them into a processor such as the processor 101 in the MIRS system 100.”), ([0038] via “Since forces applied to the tool 110 such as a static force experienced when the tool 110 is pressing against an obstruction can create a joint position error, such reflected forces are effectively passed back to the master manipulator 108 by such position error being fed back.”).
Guthart is silent on determining a coefficient K, and determining a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point; wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim, and providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot, where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system; and wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot.
However, Park teaches determining a coefficient K (Page 3 paragraphs 7-8 via “The virtual spring 110 is output as shown in the following equation, and is set as a special type of spring in which the magnitude of the force is limited. (Equation 3) here, [[e]] Is a position error between the position of the end of the virtual robot 100 and the target trajectory 1000 given by the user. [[K]] Is the spring constant determined by the user, [[D]] Is the damper constant, [[fcut]] Is the critical output of the virtual spring 110.”), (Note: See Equation 3 of Park within paragraph [0029] of the Korean translation, wherein Equation 3 is given as:
f
=
K
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
≤
f
c
u
t
f
c
u
t
e
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
>
f
c
u
t
. In this instance, the Examiner interprets the spring constant K of Park as the coefficient K.), and
determining a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point (Page 3 paragraphs 7-8 via “The virtual spring 110 is output as shown in the following equation, and is set as a special type of spring in which the magnitude of the force is limited. (Equation 3) here, [[e]] Is a position error between the position of the end of the virtual robot 100 and the target trajectory 1000 given by the user. [[K]] Is the spring constant determined by the user, [[D]] Is the damper constant, [[fcut]] Is the critical output of the virtual spring 110.”), (Note: See Equation 3 of Park within paragraph [0029] of the Korean translation, wherein Equation 3 is given as:
f
=
K
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
≤
f
c
u
t
f
c
u
t
e
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
>
f
c
u
t
); and
providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot (Page 3 paragraph 6 via “The virtual external force generated by the impedance control module 20 acts in a direction to induce the virtual robot 100 to be close to a target trajectory input by the user. Specifically, one side of the virtual spring 110 is connected to an end effector 150 that is an end of the robot, and the other side is configured to be connected to the target trajectory 1000. Accordingly, the direction of the force applied by the virtual spring 110 to the end effector 150 is a direction toward the target trajectory 1000. In other words, a force is generated to pull the end effector 150 toward the target trajectory 1000.”),
where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system (Page 4 paragraph 3 via “(Equation 5) The impedance control module 20 for calculating the external force using the above-described implicit method is a spring constant [[K]] Can be set very high, and through this, the virtual robot 100 in the dynamics simulation can follow the target trajectory 1000 with high accuracy in a section other than the kinematic singularity.”), (Note: See Equation 5 within paragraphs [0037] – [0039] of the Korean translation of Park as well.).
Further, Shimodaira teaches wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim ([0096] – [0098] via “The control apparatus 3a substitutes the target force f.sub.St and the acting force f.sub.S in the equation of motion of the impedance control, and thereby, specifies a force-derived correction amount ΔS. The force-derived correction amount ΔS refers to a magnitude of the position S to which TCP should move for resolving a force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) from the target force f.sub.St when TCP is subjected to mechanical impedance. The following equation (1) is the equation of motion of the impedance control.
m
∆
S
¨
t
+
d
∆
S
˙
t
+
k
∆
S
)
t
)
=
∆
f
s
(
t
)
(1). The left side of the equation (1) is formed by a first term of multiplication of a second order differential value of the position S of TCP by a virtual inertia coefficient m, a second term of multiplication of a differential value of the position S of TCP by a virtual viscosity coefficient d, and a third term of multiplication of the position S of TCP by a virtual elastic coefficient k. The right side of the equation (1) is formed by the force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) obtained by subtraction of the real acting force f.sub.S from the target force f.sub.St. … The virtual inertia coefficient m refers to a mass that TCP virtually has, the virtual viscosity coefficient d refers to a viscosity resistance to which TCP is virtually subjected, and the virtual elastic coefficient k refers to a spring constant of an elastic force to which TCP is virtually subjected.).
Further, Tan teaches wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot ([0056] via “A task planning processor 302 receives an assigned task for the robotic machine assembly 102 to perform, such as to bleed the brakes of a vehicle. The task may be received from either a user interface 304 or the communication circuit 222.”), ([0057] via “The task planning processor 302, a manipulation processor 303, and a motion planning processor 312 may plan the performance of the assigned task. … The task performance plan further includes planned forces to be exerted by the robotic arm 210
on the target object to manipulate the target object, such as a planned pulling force and direction of the force on a brake lever.”), ([0067] via “The dynamic planning processor 318 is configured to receive feedback from one or more sensors during movement of the arm 210, and adjusts the generated forces based on the feedback to reduce discrepancies between the monitored movement and the planned movement of the robotic arm 210 according to the task performance plan. For example, the dynamic planning processor 318 analyzes the feedback to determine whether the robotic arm 210, in the performance of the task, exerts a pulling force on the target object that is (at least approximately) equal to the actuation force parameter received from the memory device 232 and included in the task performance plan.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Park wherein the robot teleoperation method comprises: determining a coefficient K, and determining a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point; and providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot, where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system. Doing so manipulates the relationship between the master robot and the slave robot using a known virtual mechanical-impedance method to optimize the control of the slave robot, wherein the position accuracy and the stability of the slave robot are optimized, as stated by Park (Page 4 paragraphs 3-4 via “(Equation 5) The impedance control module 20 for calculating the external force using the above-described implicit method is a spring constant [[K]] Can be set very high, and through this, the virtual robot 100 in the dynamics simulation can follow the target trajectory 1000 with high accuracy in a section other than the kinematic singularity. On the other hand, kinematic singularity means a'state' that cannot be reached kinematically rather than a single coordinate. In this singularity, additional power is not generated other than an external force by the impedance control module 20 so as not to diverge or stop the operation of the virtual robot 100. In addition, since the virtual spring 110 of the impedance control module 20 also has a limited output force as in Equation 3, the virtual robot 100 deviates from the target trajectory 1000 but exhibits a stable movement.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shimodaira wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim. Doing so calculates the correction amount to get the acting force enacted by the robot to the target force, as stated above by Shimodaira.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tan wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot. Doing so reduces the differences between the planned and actual forces exerted by the robot, as stated above by Tan in paragraph [0067].
Regarding Claim 18, modified reference Guthart teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising controlling an actuator of the master robot to provide tactile feedback to an operator operating the master robot based on the portion Fext ([0026] via “To this end, position, force, and tactile feedback sensors are preferably employed on the tools 110 to transmit position, force, and tactile sensations from the tools 110 back to the Surgeon's hands as he/she operates the control devices 108.”).
Regarding Claim 23, Guthart teaches a computer device, comprising a processor ([0032] via “The processor 101 may be separate from or integrated as appropriate into the robotic mechanisms 114 and 115, it may be or be part of a stand-alone unit, or it may be integrated in whole or in part into the Console serving as its processor or as a co-processor to its processor. Although described as a processor, it is to be appreciated that the processor 101 may be implemented in practice by any combination of hardware, software and firmware.”),
wherein the computer causes the processor to ([0029] via “The processor 101 performs various functions in the system 100.”):
acquire a displacement of a reference point on a master robot and a displacement of a selected point on a slave robot corresponding to the reference point ([0034] via “As the user 201 manipulates the master manipulator 108, the slave controller 203 translates its position from the coordinate frame of the master manipulator 108 to the coordinate frame of the tool 110. The slave controller 203 then determines the joint positions for the slave manipulator 114 that correspond to that tool position, and commands motors corresponding to each of those joints to move their respective joints to those positions using a closed-loop control system for each of the motors. Meanwhile, a master controller 207 feeds back any position error to the master manipulator 108 so that the master manipulator 108 tends to move in tandem along with the slave manipulator 114.”); and
control the slave robot to follow a motion of the master robot based on the control force F ([0034] via “As the user 201 manipulates the master manipulator 108, the slave controller 203 translates its position from the coordinate frame of the master manipulator 108 to the coordinate frame of the tool 110. … Meanwhile, a master controller 207 feeds back any position error to the master manipulator 108 so that the master manipulator 108 tends to move in tandem along with the slave manipulator 114.”), ([0035] via “The functions of the slave controller 203 and the master controller 207 are implemented, for example, by programming them into a processor such as the processor 101 in the MIRS system 100.”), ([0038] via “Since forces applied to the tool 110 such as a static force experienced when the tool 110 is pressing against an obstruction can create a joint position error, such reflected forces are effectively passed back to the master manipulator 108 by such position error being fed back.”).
Guthart is silent on wherein the computer device comprises a memory, the memory having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: determine a coefficient K, and determine a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point; and wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim, and providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot, where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system; and wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot.
However, Tan teaches wherein the computer device comprises a memory, the memory having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor ([0052] via “The communication circuit 222 of the robotic machine assembly 102 receives the task parameter message 250 and conveys the contents of the message 250
to the one or more processors 248 for analysis. Optionally, the contents of the task parameter message 250, including the manipulation parameters, may be stored, at least temporarily, in a local memory 252 of the robotic machine assembly 102. The memory 252 is a tangible and non-transitory (e.g., not a transient signal) computer readable storage medium, such as a hard drive. Although shown separate from, and communicatively coupled to, the controller 208, the memory 252 optionally may be contained within the controller
208. The one or more processors 248 of the robotic machine assembly 102 analyze the manipulation parameters received in the task parameter message 250 for controlling the movement of the robotic arm 210 during the performance of the assigned task.”), causes the processor to:
wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot ([0056] via “A task planning processor 302 receives an assigned task for the robotic machine assembly 102 to perform, such as to bleed the brakes of a vehicle. The task may be received from either a user interface 304 or the communication circuit 222.”), ([0057] via “The task planning processor 302, a manipulation processor 303, and a motion planning processor 312 may plan the performance of the assigned task. … The task performance plan further includes planned forces to be exerted by the robotic arm 210 on the target object to manipulate the target object, such as a planned pulling force and direction of the force on a brake lever.”), ([0067] via “The dynamic planning processor 318 is configured to receive feedback from one or more sensors during movement of the arm 210, and adjusts the generated forces based on the feedback to reduce discrepancies between the monitored movement and the planned movement of the robotic arm 210 according to the task performance plan. For example, the dynamic planning processor 318 analyzes the feedback to determine whether the robotic arm 210, in the performance of the task, exerts a pulling force on the target object that is (at least approximately) equal to the actuation force parameter received from the memory device 232 and included in the task performance plan.”).
Further, Park teaches to determine a coefficient K (Page 3 paragraphs 7-8 via “The virtual spring 110 is output as shown in the following equation, and is set as a special type of spring in which the magnitude of the force is limited. (Equation 3) here, [[e]] Is a position error between the position of the end of the virtual robot 100 and the target trajectory 1000 given by the user. [[K]] Is the spring constant determined by the user, [[D]] Is the damper constant, [[fcut]] Is the critical output of the virtual spring 110.”), (Note: See Equation 3 of Park within paragraph [0029] of the Korean translation, wherein Equation 3 is given as:
f
=
K
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
≤
f
c
u
t
f
c
u
t
e
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
>
f
c
u
t
. In this instance, the Examiner interprets the spring constant K of Park as the coefficient K.), and
determine a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point (Page 3 paragraphs 7-8 via “The virtual spring 110 is output as shown in the following equation, and is set as a special type of spring in which the magnitude of the force is limited. (Equation 3) here, [[e]] Is a position error between the position of the end of the virtual robot 100 and the target trajectory 1000 given by the user. [[K]] Is the spring constant determined by the user, [[D]] Is the damper constant, [[fcut]]
Is the critical output of the virtual spring 110.”), (Note: See Equation 3 of Park within paragraph [0029] of the Korean translation, wherein Equation 3 is given as:
f
=
K
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
≤
f
c
u
t
f
c
u
t
e
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
>
f
c
u
t
); and
providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot (Page 3 paragraph 6 via “The virtual external force generated by the impedance control module 20 acts in a direction to induce the virtual robot 100 to be close to a target trajectory input by the user. Specifically, one side of the virtual spring 110 is connected to an end effector 150 that is an end of the robot, and the other side is configured to be connected to the target trajectory 1000. Accordingly, the direction of the force applied by the virtual spring 110 to the end effector 150 is a direction toward the target trajectory 1000. In other words, a force is generated to pull the end effector 150 toward the target trajectory 1000.”),
where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system (Page 4 paragraph 3 via “(Equation 5) The impedance control module 20 for calculating the external force using the above-described implicit method is a spring constant [[K]] Can be set very high, and through this, the virtual robot 100 in the dynamics simulation can follow the target trajectory 1000 with high accuracy in a section other than the kinematic singularity.”), (Note: See Equation 5 within paragraphs [0037] – [0039] of the Korean translation of Park as well.).
Further, Shimodaira teaches wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim ([0096] – [0098] via “The control apparatus 3a substitutes the target force f.sub.St and the acting force f.sub.S in the equation of motion of the impedance control, and thereby, specifies a force-derived correction amount ΔS. The force-derived correction amount ΔS refers to a magnitude of the position S to which TCP should move for resolving a force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) from the target force f.sub.St when TCP is subjected to mechanical impedance. The following equation (1) is the equation of motion of the impedance control.
m
∆
S
¨
t
+
d
∆
S
˙
t
+
k
∆
S
)
t
)
=
∆
f
s
(
t
)
(1). The left side of the equation (1) is formed by a first term of multiplication of a second order differential value of the position S of TCP by a virtual inertia coefficient m, a second term of multiplication of a differential value of the position S of TCP by a virtual viscosity coefficient d, and a third term of multiplication of the position S of TCP by a virtual elastic coefficient k. The right side of the equation (1) is formed by the force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) obtained by subtraction of the real acting force f.sub.S from the target force f.sub.St. … The virtual inertia coefficient m refers to a mass that TCP virtually has, the virtual viscosity coefficient d refers to a viscosity resistance to which TCP is virtually subjected, and the virtual elastic coefficient k refers to a spring constant of an elastic force to which TCP is virtually subjected.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tan wherein the computer device comprises a memory, the memory having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot. Regarding the memory storing a computer program executable by the processor, the courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Computer devices having memories storing computer programs are common computer components found in robotic control. While the invention of Guthart includes computing elements including a processor, despite the lack of mention that these computing elements include a memory for storing programs, the functionalities of the invention would still produce the same outcomes. Computer memories are a well-known and common type of computing element in the art of robot control, and therefore the simple substitution of a computer memory would have been obvious to implement. Further, regarding balancing the contact force between the slave robot and the object and the force to drive the slave robot, doing so reduces the differences between the planned and actual forces exerted by the robot, as stated above by Tan in paragraph [0067].
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Park wherein the processor is caused to: determine a coefficient K, and determine a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point; and providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot, where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system. Doing so manipulates the relationship between the master robot and the slave robot using a known virtual mechanical-impedance method to optimize the control of the slave robot, wherein the position accuracy and the stability of the slave robot are optimized, as stated by Park (Page 4 paragraphs 3-4 via “(Equation 5) The impedance control module 20 for calculating the external force using the above-described implicit method is a spring constant [[K]] Can be set very high, and through this, the virtual robot 100 in the dynamics simulation can follow the target trajectory 1000 with high accuracy in a section other than the kinematic singularity. On the other hand, kinematic singularity means a'state' that cannot be reached kinematically rather than a single coordinate. In this singularity, additional power is not generated other than an external force by the impedance control module 20 so as not to diverge or stop the operation of the virtual robot 100. In addition, since the virtual spring 110 of the impedance control module 20 also has a limited output force as in Equation 3, the virtual robot 100 deviates from the target trajectory 1000 but exhibits a stable movement.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shimodaira wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim. Doing so calculates the correction amount to get the acting force enacted by the robot to the target force, as stated above by Shimodaira.
Regarding Claim 24, Guthart teaches a processor ([0032] via “The processor 101 may be separate from or integrated as appropriate into the robotic mechanisms 114 and 115, it may be or be part of a stand-alone unit, or it may be integrated in whole or in part into the Console serving as its processor or as a co-processor to its processor. Although described as a processor, it is to be appreciated that the processor 101 may be implemented in practice by any combination of hardware, software and firmware.”) caused to:
acquire a displacement of a reference point on a master robot and a displacement of a selected point on a slave robot corresponding to the reference point ([0034] via “As the user 201 manipulates the master manipulator 108, the slave controller 203 translates its position from the coordinate frame of the master manipulator 108 to the coordinate frame of the tool 110. The slave controller 203 then determines the joint positions for the slave manipulator 114 that correspond to that tool position, and commands motors corresponding to each of those joints to move their respective joints to those positions using a closed-loop control system for each of the motors. Meanwhile, a master controller 207 feeds back any position error to the master manipulator 108 so that the master manipulator 108 tends to move in tandem along with the slave manipulator 114.”); and
control the slave robot to follow a motion of the master robot based on the control force F ([0034] via “As the user 201 manipulates the master manipulator 108, the slave controller 203 translates its position from the coordinate frame of the master manipulator 108 to the coordinate frame of the tool 110. … Meanwhile, a master controller 207 feeds back any position error to the master manipulator 108 so that the master manipulator 108 tends to move in tandem along with the slave manipulator 114.”), ([0035] via “The functions of the slave controller 203 and the master controller 207 are implemented, for example, by programming them into a processor such as the processor 101 in the MIRS system 100.”), ([0038] via “Since forces applied to the tool 110 such as a static force experienced when the tool 110 is pressing against an obstruction can create a joint position error, such reflected forces are effectively passed back to the master manipulator 108 by such position error being fed back.”).
Guthart is silent on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: determine a coefficient K, and determine a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point; and wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim, and providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot, where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system; and wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot.
However, Tan teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to ([0052] via “The communication circuit 222 of the robotic machine assembly 102 receives the task parameter message 250 and conveys the contents of the message 250 to the one or more processors 248 for analysis. Optionally, the contents of the task parameter message 250, including the manipulation parameters, may be stored, at least temporarily, in a local memory 252 of the robotic machine assembly 102. The memory
252 is a tangible and non-transitory (e.g., not a transient signal) computer readable storage medium, such as a hard drive. Although shown separate from, and communicatively coupled to, the controller 208, the memory 252 optionally may be contained within the controller
208. The one or more processors 248 of the robotic machine assembly 102 analyze the manipulation parameters received in the task parameter message 250 for controlling the movement of the robotic arm 210 during the performance of the assigned task.”):
wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot ([0056] via “A task planning processor 302 receives an assigned task for the robotic machine assembly 102 to perform, such as to bleed the brakes of a vehicle. The task may be received from either a user interface 304 or the communication circuit 222.”), ([0057] via “The task planning processor 302, a manipulation processor 303, and a motion planning processor 312 may plan the performance of the assigned task. … The task performance plan further includes planned forces to be exerted by the robotic arm 210 on the target object to manipulate the target object, such as a planned pulling force and direction of the force on a brake lever.”), ([0067] via “The dynamic planning processor 318 is configured to receive feedback from one or more sensors during movement of the arm 210, and adjusts the generated forces based on the feedback to reduce discrepancies between the monitored movement and the planned movement of the robotic arm 210 according to the task performance plan. For example, the dynamic planning processor 318 analyzes the feedback to determine whether the robotic arm 210, in the performance of the task, exerts a pulling force on the target object that is (at least approximately) equal to the actuation force parameter received from the memory device 232 and included in the task performance plan.”).
Further, Park teaches to determine a coefficient K (Page 3 paragraphs 7-8 via “The virtual spring 110 is output as shown in the following equation, and is set as a special type of spring in which the magnitude of the force is limited. (Equation 3) here, [[e]] Is a position error between the position of the end of the virtual robot 100 and the target trajectory 1000 given by the user. [[K]] Is the spring constant determined by the user, [[D]] Is the damper constant, [[fcut]] Is the critical output of the virtual spring 110.”), (Note: See Equation 3 of Park within paragraph [0029] of the Korean translation, wherein Equation 3 is given as:
f
=
K
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
≤
f
c
u
t
f
c
u
t
e
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
>
f
c
u
t
. In this instance, the Examiner interprets the spring constant K of Park as the coefficient K.), and
determine a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point (Page 3 paragraphs 7-8 via “The virtual spring 110 is output as shown in the following equation, and is set as a special type of spring in which the magnitude of the force is limited. (Equation 3) here, [[e]] Is a position error between the position of the end of the virtual robot 100 and the target trajectory 1000 given by the user. [[K]] Is the spring constant determined by the user, [[D]] Is the damper constant, [[fcut]]
Is the critical output of the virtual spring 110.”), (Note: See equation 3 of Park within paragraph [0029] of the Korean translation, wherein equation 3 is given as:
f
=
K
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
≤
f
c
u
t
f
c
u
t
e
e
+
D
e
˙
i
f
K
e
>
f
c
u
t
); and
providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot (Page 3 paragraph 6 via “The virtual external force generated by the impedance control module 20 acts in a direction to induce the virtual robot 100 to be close to a target trajectory input by the user. Specifically, one side of the virtual spring 110 is connected to an end effector 150 that is an end of the robot, and the other side is configured to be connected to the target trajectory 1000. Accordingly, the direction of the force applied by the virtual spring 110 to the end effector 150 is a direction toward the target trajectory 1000. In other words, a force is generated to pull the end effector 150 toward the target trajectory 1000.”),
where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system (Page 4 paragraph 3 via “(Equation 5) The impedance control module 20 for calculating the external force using the above-described implicit method is a spring constant [[K]] Can be set very high, and through this, the virtual robot 100 in the dynamics simulation can follow the target trajectory 1000 with high accuracy in a section other than the kinematic singularity.”), (Note: See Equation 5 within paragraphs [0037] – [0039] of the Korean translation of Park as well.).
Further, Shimodaira teaches wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim ([0096] – [0098] via “The control apparatus 3a substitutes the target force f.sub.St and the acting force f.sub.S in the equation of motion of the impedance control, and thereby, specifies a force-derived correction amount ΔS. The force-derived correction amount ΔS refers to a magnitude of the position S to which TCP should move for resolving a force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) from the target force f.sub.St when TCP is subjected to mechanical impedance. The following equation (1) is the equation of motion of the impedance control.
m
∆
S
¨
t
+
d
∆
S
˙
t
+
k
∆
S
)
t
)
=
∆
f
s
(
t
)
(1). The left side of the equation (1) is formed by a first term of multiplication of a second order differential value of the position S of TCP by a virtual inertia coefficient m, a second term of multiplication of a differential value of the position S of TCP by a virtual viscosity coefficient d, and a third term of multiplication of the position S of TCP by a virtual elastic coefficient k. The right side of the equation (1) is formed by the force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) obtained by subtraction of the real acting force f.sub.S from the target force f.sub.St. … The virtual inertia coefficient m refers to a mass that TCP virtually has, the virtual viscosity coefficient d refers to a viscosity resistance to which TCP is virtually subjected, and the virtual elastic coefficient k refers to a spring constant of an elastic force to which TCP is virtually subjected.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tan of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having a computer program stored therein, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: wherein the portion Fext comprises one portion of the control force F which serves to balance a contact force between the slave robot and an external object and another portion of the control force F which serves to drive the slave robot to follow the motion of the master robot. Regarding the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program executable by the processor, the courts have determined under the case KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-07 (2007), a number of rationales in which obviousness is concluded. The rationale that pertains to the present invention is rationale B: Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results. Specifically, in this case item 3 of rationale B is satisfied: a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Non-transitory computer readable storage mediums storing computer programs are common computer components found in robotic control. While the invention of Guthart includes computing elements including a processor, despite the lack of mention that these computing elements include a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing programs, the functionalities of the invention would still produce the same outcomes. Non-transitory computer readable storage mediums are a well-known and common type of computing element in the art of robot control, and therefore the simple substitution of a computer memory would have been obvious to implement. Further, regarding balancing the contact force between the slave robot and the object and the force to drive the slave robot, doing so reduces the differences between the planned and actual forces exerted by the robot, as stated above by Tan in paragraph [0067].
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Park wherein the processor is caused to: determine a coefficient K, and determine a control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point based on the coefficient K and a displacement error between the displacement of the reference point and the displacement of the selected point; and providing a virtual mechanical-impedance system between the master robot and the slave robot for controlling the slave robot with the master robot, where the coefficient K represents a virtual spring coefficient in the virtual mechanical-impedance system. Doing so manipulates the relationship between the master robot and the slave robot using a known virtual mechanical-impedance method to optimize the control of the slave robot, wherein the position accuracy and the stability of the slave robot are optimized, as stated by Park (Page 4 paragraphs 3-4 via “(Equation 5) The impedance control module 20 for calculating the external force using the above-described implicit method is a spring constant [[K]] Can be set very high, and through this, the virtual robot 100 in the dynamics simulation can follow the target trajectory 1000 with high accuracy in a section other than the kinematic singularity. On the other hand, kinematic singularity means a'state' that cannot be reached kinematically rather than a single coordinate. In this singularity, additional power is not generated other than an external force by the impedance control module 20 so as not to diverge or stop the operation of the virtual robot 100. In addition, since the virtual spring 110 of the impedance control module 20 also has a limited output force as in Equation 3, the virtual robot 100 deviates from the target trajectory 1000 but exhibits a stable movement.”).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Shimodaira wherein determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises determining the coefficient K such that a portion Fext of the control force F at the selected point is less than or equal to a predetermined threshold Flim. Doing so calculates the correction amount to get the acting force enacted by the robot to the target force, as stated above by Shimodaira.
9. Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthart et al. (US 20050200324 A1 hereinafter Guthart) in view of Park et al. (KR 102156655 B1 hereinafter Park (Note: Both the English and Korean translation of Park are included with this Office Action. Citations will be taken from the English translation unless otherwise stated.)), Shimodaira et al. (US 20160354925 A1 hereinafter Shimodaira), and Tan (US 20170361461 A1 hereinafter Tan), and further in view of Takagi (US 20160008082 A1 hereinafter Takagi).
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Guthart teaches the robot teleoperation system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control system is further configured to: maintain the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim; and adjust the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim.
However, Takagi teaches wherein the control system is further configured to: maintain the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim; and adjust the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim ([0087] via “In this embodiment, the gain Kf is changed in accordance with the puncture reaction force Fn, as shown in FIG. 5. The gain Kf is 1 when the puncture reaction force is the reaction force threshold Fnmin or less, hence the puncture needle advances at a predetermined speed. When the puncture reaction force is the reaction force threshold Fmin or more, the gain Kf is decreased at a predetermined reduction rate which is expressed as a linear function of the inclination ak. Kfmin is predetermined as the minimum value of the gain Kf.”), (Note: Also see equations 7-9 of Takagi.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takagi wherein the control system is further configured to: maintain the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim; and adjust the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim. Doing so controls the speed of the end effector such that its parameter errors are reduced and the end effector is controlled more appropriately, as stated by Takagi ([0086] via “In a state where the needle advances and tissue is easily punctured, the strain of the organ increases as shown by Expression (3), and elasticity changes. This change in elasticity generates a major puncture angle error. If the needle advancement speed is constant at this time, the tissue is punctured without taking sufficient time to compensate for puncture angle error, and as a result, a major puncture error is generated. To prevent this, the needle advancement target speed rf is multiplied by a needle advancement speed gain Kf, which changes with the puncture reaction force as a parameter, and the result is integrated to generate the needle advancement target displacement. Thereby the needle advancement speed can be continuously reduced as the puncture reaction force increases.”).
Regarding Claim 13, modified reference Guthart teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises: maintaining the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim; and adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim.
However, Takagi teaches wherein the determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises: maintaining the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim; and adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim ([0087] via “In this embodiment, the gain Kf is changed in accordance with the puncture reaction force Fn, as shown in FIG. 5. The gain Kf is 1 when the puncture reaction force is the reaction force threshold Fnmin or less, hence the puncture needle advances at a predetermined speed. When the puncture reaction force is the reaction force threshold Fmin or more, the gain Kf is decreased at a predetermined reduction rate which is expressed as a linear function of the inclination ak. Kfmin is predetermined as the minimum value of the gain Kf.”), (Note: Also see equations 7-9 of Takagi.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takagi wherein the determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises: maintaining the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim; and adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim. Doing so controls the speed of the end effector such that its parameter errors are reduced and the end effector is controlled more appropriately, as stated by Takagi ([0086] via “In a state where the needle advances and tissue is easily punctured, the strain of the organ increases as shown by Expression (3), and elasticity changes. This change in elasticity generates a major puncture angle error. If the needle advancement speed is constant at this time, the tissue is punctured without taking sufficient time to compensate for puncture angle error, and as a result, a major puncture error is generated. To prevent this, the needle advancement target speed rf is multiplied by a needle advancement speed gain Kf, which changes with the puncture reaction force as a parameter, and the result is integrated to generate the needle advancement target displacement. Thereby the needle advancement speed can be continuously reduced as the puncture reaction force increases.”).
10. Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthart et al. (US 20050200324 A1 hereinafter Guthart) in view of Park et al. (KR 102156655 B1 hereinafter Park (Note: Both the English and Korean translations of Park are included with this Office Action. Citations will be taken from the English translation unless otherwise stated.)), Shimodaira et al. (US 20160354925 A1 hereinafter Shimodaira), and Tan (US 20170361461 A1 hereinafter Tan), further in view of Takagi (US 20160008082 A1 hereinafter Takagi), and further in view of Carlisle et al. (US 20180354136 A1 hereinafter Carlisle).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Guthart teaches the robot teleoperation system of claim 3, but is silent on wherein the control system is further configured to: when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, adjust the coefficient K based on the displacement error such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim.
However, Carlisle teaches wherein the control system is further configured to: when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, adjust the coefficient K based on the displacement error such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim ([0057] via “In step 6c, the velocity and acceleration commands are provided for use in the dynamic feedforward torque computation by the reflected inertia and effective mass modeler 5c and the feedforward torque manager 5d. In addition, the velocity and acceleration commands are provided to a PID feedback error torque manager at step 6d. The PID feedback error torque manager is also provided with the actual instantaneous axis positions in step 6h, e.g., by reading encoders or other position indicators for each of the axes. The PID feedback error torque manager compares these position values to the commands to generate correction feedback torques for each motor, and provides these correction feedback torques in step 6e to a PID torque limiter, which may limit the correction feedback torques to 10% to 25% of maximum motor torque. This serves to prevent excessive torque delivery in the event of a collision, which tends to produce excessive error signals.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Carlisle wherein the control system is further configured to: when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, adjust the coefficient K based on the displacement error such that the portion Fext is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold Flim. Doing so keeps an appropriate level of force exerted even when large position changes occur, as stated above by Carlisle.
Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Guthart teaches the method of claim 13, but is silent on wherein the adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim comprises: adjusting the coefficient K based on the displacement error.
However, Carlisle teaches wherein the adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim comprises: adjusting the coefficient K based on the displacement error ([0057] via “In step 6c, the velocity and acceleration commands are provided for use in the dynamic feedforward torque computation by the reflected inertia and effective mass modeler 5c and the feedforward torque manager 5d. In addition, the velocity and acceleration commands are provided to a PID feedback error torque manager at step 6d. The PID feedback error torque manager is also provided with the actual instantaneous axis positions in step 6h, e.g., by reading encoders or other position indicators for each of the axes. The PID feedback error torque manager compares these position values to the commands to generate correction feedback torques for each motor, and provides these correction feedback torques in step 6e to a PID torque limiter, which may limit the correction feedback torques to 10% to 25% of maximum motor torque. This serves to prevent excessive torque delivery in the event of a collision, which tends to produce excessive error signals.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Carlisle wherein the adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim comprises: adjusting the coefficient K based on the displacement error. Doing so keeps an appropriate level of force exerted even when large position changes occur, as stated above by Carlisle.
11. Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthart et al. (US 20050200324 A1 hereinafter Guthart) in view of Park et al. (KR 102156655 B1 hereinafter Park (Note: Both the English and Korean translations of Park are included with this Office Action. Citations will be taken from the English translation unless otherwise stated.)), Shimodaira et al. (US 20160354925 A1 hereinafter Shimodaira), and Tan (US 20170361461 A1 hereinafter Tan), and further in view of Fan et al. (WO 2021056591 A1 hereinafter Fan) and Zhang et al. (US 20220371186 A1 hereinafter Zhang '186).
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Guthart teaches the robot teleoperation system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control system is further configured to establish a virtual impedance control relation between the master robot and the slave robot, and determine the control force F according to the equation:
F
=
Λ
^
x
x
¨
+
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
+
p
^
x
+
K
*
x
d
-
x
+
D
*
(
x
d
˙
-
x
˙
)
, where
Λ
^
x
is an inertia matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on a dynamics model of the slave robot,
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
is the centrifugal and Coriolis force matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the slave robot dynamics model,
p
^
x
is a gravity matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the dynamics model, xd is the displacement of the reference point, x is the displacement of the selected point,
x
d
˙
is the first order derivative of xd,
x
˙
is the first order derivative of x,
x
¨
is the second order derivative of x, and D is a virtual damping coefficient; wherein the portion Fext is determined based on the equation:
F
e
x
t
=
K
x
e
+
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
¨
, where xe is the error between xd and x,
x
e
˙
is the error between
x
d
˙
and
x
˙
, and
x
e
¨
is the error between the second order derivative of xd and the second order derivative of x.
However, Fan teaches wherein the control system is further configured to establish a virtual impedance control relation between the master robot and the slave robot (Page 8 via “In step 412, the shafting space impedance control mode is selected, that is, the end manipulator 10 has a certain degree of elasticity like a spring when it moves around the shaft (joint), and can give a certain feedback to the operator when it comes into contact with the operator 70 The force is large and small, but the operator 70 will not be injured.”), and
determine the control force F according to the equation:
F
=
Λ
^
x
x
¨
+
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
+
p
^
x
+
K
*
x
d
-
x
+
D
*
(
x
d
˙
-
x
˙
)
, , where
Λ
^
x
is an inertia matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on a dynamics model of the slave robot,
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
is the centrifugal and Coriolis force matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the slave robot dynamics model,
p
^
x
is a gravity matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the dynamics model, xd is the displacement of the reference point, x is the displacement of the selected point,
x
d
˙
is the first order derivative of xd,
x
˙
is the first order derivative of x,
x
¨
is the second order derivative of x, and D is a virtual damping coefficient (Page 5 via “The motion control mode switching subtask includes adjusting the control parameters corresponding to the shafting space impedance control mode according to the following formula:
τ
=
M
q
*
q
*
¨
+
C
q
*
,
q
*
˙
q
*
˙
+
(
g
q
+
k
p
q
-
q
*
+
k
d
q
˙
-
q
*
˙
+
f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
(
q
,
q
˙
)
, Among them, τ is the output torque of the power system; M(q) is the inertia matrix; C(q,
q
˙
) is the Coriolis/centrifugal matrix; g(q) id the gravity torque vector function; friction(q,
q
˙
) is the joint friction function, kp and kd are the joint stiffness matrix and joint damping matrix respectively, which can be configured manually; q is the actual joint position,
q
˙
is the actual joint speed; q* is the ideal joint position;
q
*
˙
is the ideal joint speed;
q
*
¨
is the ideal joint acceleration. The beneficial technical effect of this preferred embodiment is at least that the control method can adjust the control parameters according to the formula so as to better achieve the purpose of interacting with the target object and avoid the target object from colliding with the target object.”).
Further, Zhang ‘186 teaches wherein the portion Fext is determined based on the equation:
F
e
x
t
=
K
x
e
+
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
¨
, where xe is the error between xd and x,
x
e
˙
is the error between
x
d
˙
and
x
˙
, and
x
e
¨
is the error between the second order derivative of xd and the second order derivative of x ([0051]-[0054] via “Under an ideal working condition, while two robot end suckers clamp a workpiece, there is no any relative movement between mechanisms, it may be regarded that a rigid body of the slave robot and a rigid body of the mater robot clamping the workpiece are coupled with each other in mechanical damping of the sensor, to obtain the dual-robot mechanical damping system model, as shown in FIG. 2. According to the dynamic force balance equation of the dual-robot mechanical damping system model, on the master robot side, the sucker acting force f1 is:
f
1
=
k
s
x
1
-
x
2
+
b
s
x
1
˙
-
x
2
˙
+
m
1
x
1
¨
, Where, f1 is the actual applied force of the master robot; ks is an environmental stiffness coefficient; bs is an environmental damping coefficient; x1 is the actual position of the master robot; x2 is the actual position of the slave robot; and m1 is the sum of masses of the sucker of the mater robot and the workpiece. On the slave robot side, the sucker acting force f2 is:
f
2
=
k
s
x
1
-
x
2
+
b
s
x
1
˙
-
x
2
˙
+
m
2
x
2
¨
, Where, f2 may be equivalent to the external force fe measured by the force sensor installed on a wrist portion of the robot; and m2 is the mass of the sucker of the slave robot.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that if X and its derivatives were the error functions, that the equation would still read the same.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the control system is further configured to establish a virtual impedance control relation between the master robot and the slave robot, and determine the control force F according to the equation:
F
=
Λ
^
x
x
¨
+
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
+
p
^
x
+
K
*
x
d
-
x
+
D
*
(
x
d
˙
-
x
˙
)
, , where
Λ
^
x
is an inertia matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on a dynamics model of the slave robot,
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
is the centrifugal and Coriolis force matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the slave robot dynamics model,
p
^
x
is a gravity matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the dynamics model, xd is the displacement of the reference point, x is the displacement of the selected point,
x
d
˙
is the first order derivative of xd,
x
˙
is the first order derivative of x,
x
¨
is the second order derivative of x, and D is a virtual damping coefficient. Doing so allows the control parameters to be easily optimized by adjusting them within the formula, as stated above by Fan on page 5.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang ‘186 wherein the portion Fext is determined based on the equation:
F
e
x
t
=
K
x
e
+
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
¨
, where xe is the error between xd and x,
x
e
˙
is the error between
x
d
˙
and
x
˙
, and
x
e
¨
is the error between the second order derivative of xd and the second order derivative of x. Doing so models the master and slave robots as a damping system to determine their respective external forces exerted, as stated above by Zhang ‘186.
Regarding Claim 15, modified reference Guthart teaches the method of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises establishing a virtual impedance control relation between the master robot and the slave robot and determining the control force F according to the equation:
F
=
Λ
^
x
x
¨
+
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
+
p
^
x
+
K
*
x
d
-
x
+
D
*
(
x
d
˙
-
x
˙
)
, where
Λ
^
x
is an inertia matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on a dynamics model of the slave robot,
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
is the centrifugal and Coriolis force matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the slave robot dynamics model,
p
^
x
is a gravity matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the dynamics model, xd is the displacement of the reference point, x is the displacement of the selected point,
x
d
˙
is the first order derivative of xd,
x
˙
is the first order derivative of x,
x
¨
is the second order derivative of x, and D is a virtual damping coefficient; wherein the portion is determined based on the equation:
F
e
x
t
=
K
x
e
+
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
¨
, where xe is the error between xd and x,
x
e
˙
is the error between
x
d
˙
and
x
˙
, and
x
e
¨
is the error between the second order derivative of xd and the second order derivative of x.
However, Fan teaches wherein the determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises establishing a virtual impedance control relation between the master robot and the slave robot (Page 8 via “In step 412, the shafting space impedance control mode is selected, that is, the end manipulator 10 has a certain degree of elasticity like a spring when it moves around the shaft (joint), and can give a certain feedback to the operator when it comes into contact with the operator 70 The force is large and small, but the operator 70 will not be injured.”) and
determining the control force F according to the equation:
F
=
Λ
^
x
x
¨
+
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
+
p
^
x
+
K
*
x
d
-
x
+
D
*
(
x
d
˙
-
x
˙
)
, , where
Λ
^
x
is an inertia matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on a dynamics model of the slave robot,
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
is the centrifugal and Coriolis force matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the slave robot dynamics model,
p
^
x
is a gravity matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the dynamics model, xd is the displacement of the reference point, x is the displacement of the selected point,
x
d
˙
is the first order derivative of xd,
x
˙
is the first order derivative of x,
x
¨
is the second order derivative of x, and D is a virtual damping coefficient (Page 5 via “The motion control mode switching subtask includes adjusting the control parameters corresponding to the shafting space impedance control mode according to the following formula:
τ
=
M
q
*
q
*
¨
+
C
q
*
,
q
*
˙
q
*
˙
+
(
g
q
+
k
p
q
-
q
*
+
k
d
q
˙
-
q
*
˙
+
f
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
(
q
,
q
˙
)
, Among them, τ is the output torque of the power system; M(q) is the inertia matrix; C(q,
q
˙
) is the Coriolis/centrifugal matrix; g(q) id the gravity torque vector function; friction(q,
q
˙
) is the joint friction function, kp and kd are the joint stiffness matrix and joint damping matrix respectively, which can be configured manually; q is the actual joint position,
q
˙
is the actual joint speed; q* is the ideal joint position;
q
*
˙
is the ideal joint speed;
q
*
¨
is the ideal joint acceleration. The beneficial technical effect of this preferred embodiment is at least that the control method can adjust the control parameters according to the formula so as to better achieve the purpose of interacting with the target object and avoid the target object from colliding with the target object.”).
Further, Zhang ‘186 teaches wherein the portion is determined based on the equation:
F
e
x
t
=
K
x
e
+
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
¨
, where xe is the error between xd and x,
x
e
˙
is the error between
x
d
˙
and
x
˙
, and
x
e
¨
is the error between the second order derivative of xd and the second order derivative of x ([0051]-[0054] via “Under an ideal working condition, while two robot end suckers clamp a workpiece, there is no any relative movement between mechanisms, it may be regarded that a rigid body of the slave robot and a rigid body of the mater robot clamping the workpiece are coupled with each other in mechanical damping of the sensor, to obtain the dual-robot mechanical damping system model, as shown in FIG. 2. According to the dynamic force balance equation of the dual-robot mechanical damping system model, on the master robot side, the sucker acting force f1 is:
f
1
=
k
s
x
1
-
x
2
+
b
s
x
1
˙
-
x
2
˙
+
m
1
x
1
¨
, Where, f1 is the actual applied force of the master robot; ks is an environmental stiffness coefficient; bs is an environmental damping coefficient; x1 is the actual position of the master robot; x2 is the actual position of the slave robot; and m1 is the sum of masses of the sucker of the mater robot and the workpiece. On the slave robot side, the sucker acting force f2 is:
f
2
=
k
s
x
1
-
x
2
+
b
s
x
1
˙
-
x
2
˙
+
m
2
x
2
¨
, Where, f2 may be equivalent to the external force fe measured by the force sensor installed on a wrist portion of the robot; and m2 is the mass of the sucker of the slave robot.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that if X and its derivatives were the error functions, that the equation would still read the same.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fan wherein the determining the control force F output by the slave robot at the selected point comprises establishing a virtual impedance control relation between the master robot and the slave robot and determining the control force F according to the equation:
F
=
Λ
^
x
x
¨
+
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
+
p
^
x
+
K
*
x
d
-
x
+
D
*
(
x
d
˙
-
x
˙
)
, , where
Λ
^
x
is an inertia matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on a dynamics model of the slave robot,
μ
^
x
,
x
˙
is the centrifugal and Coriolis force matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the slave robot dynamics model,
p
^
x
is a gravity matrix of the slave robot at the selected point based on the dynamics model, xd is the displacement of the reference point, x is the displacement of the selected point,
x
d
˙
is the first order derivative of xd,
x
˙
is the first order derivative of x,
x
¨
is the second order derivative of x, and D is a virtual damping coefficient. Doing so allows the control parameters to be easily optimized by adjusting them within the formula, as stated above by Fan on page 5.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang ‘186 wherein the portion is determined based on the equation:
F
e
x
t
=
K
x
e
+
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
¨
, where xe is the error between xd and x,
x
e
˙
is the error between
x
d
˙
and
x
˙
, and
x
e
¨
is the error between the second order derivative of xd and the second order derivative of x. Doing so models the master and slave robots as a damping system to determine their respective external forces exerted, as stated above by Zhang ‘186.
12. Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthart et al. (US 20050200324 A1 hereinafter Guthart) in view of Park et al. (KR 102156655 B1 hereinafter Park (Note: Both the English and Korean translations of Park are included with this Office Action. Citations will be taken from the English translation unless otherwise stated.)), Shimodaira et al. (US 20160354925 A1 hereinafter Shimodaira), and Tan (US 20170361461 A1 hereinafter Tan), further in view of Fan et al. (WO 2021056591 A1 hereinafter Fan) and Zhang et al. (US 20220371186 A1 hereinafter Zhang '186), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160346928 A1 hereinafter Zhang '928) and Gotou (US 20160075031 A1 hereinafter Gotou).
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Guthart teaches the robot teleoperation system of claim 5, but is silent on wherein the control system is further configured to: when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim, maintain the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 and when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, determine the coefficient K based on one of the following equations:
K
=
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
X
e
or
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
, wherein Fext(K0) represents a calculated value of the portion Fext with K being equal to K0.
However, Zhang ‘928 teaches when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim, maintain the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 ([0030] via “The relation estimator can use the measured quantities, e.g., contact force and torque along with the robot measured dynamic performance (e.g., such as speed, acceleration) along with the current values of gains and damping to estimate the relationship between them. Then the relation estimator can predict the better gains and damping to improve the robot dynamic performance and maintain the stability of the robot system and limit the maximum contact force and torques.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that if the force is at an appropriate level, then the invention of Zhang ‘928 would not need to adjust the gain coefficient.).
Further, Gotou teaches when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, determine the coefficient K based on one of the following equations:
K
=
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
X
e
or
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
, wherein Fext(K0) represents a calculated value of the portion Fext with K being equal to K0 ([0048]-[0049] via “The article pickup apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment controls the robot 2 or the hand 21 to execute the profile control when the holding operation of the article 12 is executed, so that the external force measured by the force measuring unit 33 is closer to the force target value set by the force target value setting unit 32. Specifically, the article pickup apparatus 10 executes force control in accordance with the following characteristic equation (formula 1) to execute the profile control.
F
=
M
x
¨
+
D
x
¨
+
K
x
-
x
d
(
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
1
)
M: virtual inertia coefficient, D: virtual viscosity coefficient, K: virtual elastic coefficient, F: force acting on the tip end of the arm, x: a current position of a tip end of the hand, and xd: a position of the tip end of the hand before a holding operation. In other words, the position of the tip end of the hand 21 is controlled by operating the robot
2 or the hand 21 to satisfy the characteristic equation of formula 1, and thus the profile control is executed.”), (Note: Formula 1 of Gotou above can be rearranged to get the first of the two formula options as claimed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang ‘928 wherein the control system is further configured to: when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim, maintain the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0. Doing so would maintain the stability of the robot when the stability is deemed appropriate, as stated above by Zhang ‘928.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gotou wherein the control system is further configured to: when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, determine the coefficient K based on one of the following equations:
K
=
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
X
e
or
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
, wherein Fext(K0) represents a calculated value of the portion Fext with K being equal to K0. Doing so appropriately controls the end effector of the robot according to its various control parameters, as stated above by Gotou.
Regarding Claim 16, modified reference Guthart teaches the method of claim 15, but is silent on wherein the determining the coefficient K comprises: when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim, maintaining the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 and when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, adjusting the coefficient K based on one of the following equations:
K
=
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
X
e
or
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
, wherein Fext(K0) represents a calculated value of the portion Fext with K being equal to K0.
However, Zhang ‘928 teaches when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim, maintaining the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0 ([0030] via “The relation estimator can use the measured quantities, e.g., contact force and torque along with the robot measured dynamic performance (e.g., such as speed, acceleration) along with the current values of gains and damping to estimate the relationship between them. Then the relation estimator can predict the better gains and damping to improve the robot dynamic performance and maintain the stability of the robot system and limit the maximum contact force and torques.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that if the force is at an appropriate level, then the invention of Zhang ‘928 would not need to adjust the gain coefficient.).
Further, Gotou teaches when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, adjusting the coefficient K based on one of the following equations:
K
=
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
X
e
or
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
, wherein Fext(K0) represents a calculated value of the portion Fext with K being equal to K0 ([0048]-[0049] via “The article pickup apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment controls the robot 2 or the hand 21 to execute the profile control when the holding operation of the article 12 is executed, so that the external force measured by the force measuring unit 33 is closer to the force target value set by the force target value setting unit 32. Specifically, the article pickup apparatus 10 executes force control in accordance with the following characteristic equation (formula 1) to execute the profile control.
F
=
M
x
¨
+
D
x
¨
+
K
x
-
x
d
(
f
o
r
m
u
l
a
1
)
M: virtual inertia coefficient, D: virtual viscosity coefficient, K: virtual elastic coefficient, F: force acting on the tip end of the arm, x: a current position of a tip end of the hand, and xd: a position of the tip end of the hand before a holding operation. In other words, the position of the tip end of the hand 21 is controlled by operating the robot
2 or the hand 21 to satisfy the characteristic equation of formula 1, and thus the profile control is executed.”), (Note: Formula 1 of Gotou above can be rearranged to get the first of the two formula options as claimed.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang ‘928 wherein the determining the coefficient K comprises: when the portion Fext is less than the predetermined threshold Flim, maintaining the coefficient K at a predetermined value K0. Doing so would maintain the stability of the robot when the stability is deemed appropriate, as stated above by Zhang ‘928.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gotou wherein the determining the coefficient K comprises: when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim, adjusting the coefficient K based on one of the following equations:
K
=
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
X
e
or
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
-
(
D
x
e
˙
+
Λ
^
x
e
)
¨
, wherein Fext(K0) represents a calculated value of the portion Fext with K being equal to K0. Doing so appropriately controls the end effector of the robot according to its various control parameters, as stated above by Gotou.
13. Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthart et al. (US 20050200324 A1 hereinafter Guthart) in view of Park et al. (KR 102156655 B1 hereinafter Park (Note: Both the English and Korean translations of Park are included with this Office Action. Citations will be taken from the English translation unless otherwise stated.)), Shimodaira et al. (US 20160354925 A1 hereinafter Shimodaira), and Tan (US 20170361461 A1 hereinafter Tan), further in view of Fan et al. (WO 2021056591 A1 hereinafter Fan) and Zhang et al. (US 20220371186 A1 hereinafter Zhang '186), further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160346928 A1 hereinafter Zhang '928) and Gotou (US 20160075031 A1 hereinafter Gotou), and further in view of Takao et al. (US 20240115343 A1 hereinafter Takao).
Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Guthart teaches the robot teleoperation system of claim 6, but is silent on wherein the control system is further configured to: when the slave robot is in a stationary state, determine the coefficient K by the following equation:
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
.
However, Takao teaches wherein the control system is further configured to: when the slave robot is in a stationary state, determine the coefficient K by the following equation:
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
([0134] via “Accordingly, the slip detection device SD can specify a perpendicular load fz and a frictional force fxy(0) immediately before the object starts to slip. Here, the frictional force fxy(0) is a maximum static frictional force. By using the following Formula 4, the slip detection device SD obtains a static friction coefficient μ0 between the object and the sensor unit 20 using the perpendicular load fz and the maximum static frictional force fxy(0). [Formula 4]
μ
0
=
f
x
y
(
0
)
f
z
4
.
”), (Note: The Examiner notes that despite the absence of the constant K0, that formula 4 of Takao is proportionally equivalent to the equation claimed in claim 7 above.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takao wherein the control system is further configured to: when the slave robot is in a stationary state, determine the coefficient K by the following equation:
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
. After monitoring the current state of the force applied by the end effector, such that if the end effector has an insufficient force to grasp the object, the end effector may adjust the coefficient to have a better grasp on the object, as stated above by Takao.
Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Guthart teaches the method of claim 16, but is silent on wherein the adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim comprises: when the slave robot is in a stationary state, determining the coefficient K by the following equation:
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
.
However, Takao teaches wherein the adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim comprises: when the slave robot is in a stationary state, determining the coefficient K by the following equation:
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
([0134] via “Accordingly, the slip detection device SD can specify a perpendicular load fz and a frictional force fxy(0) immediately before the object starts to slip. Here, the frictional force fxy(0) is a maximum static frictional force. By using the following Formula 4, the slip detection device SD obtains a static friction coefficient μ0 between the object and the sensor unit 20 using the perpendicular load fz and the maximum static frictional force fxy(0). [Formula 4]
μ
0
=
f
x
y
(
0
)
f
z
4
.
”), (Note: The Examiner notes that despite the absence of the constant K0, that formula 4 of Takao is proportionally equivalent to the equation claimed in claim 17 above.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Takao wherein the adjusting the coefficient K when the portion Fext reaches the predetermined threshold Flim comprises: when the slave robot is in a stationary state, determining the coefficient K by the following equation:
K
=
K
0
F
l
i
m
F
e
x
t
(
K
0
)
. After monitoring the current state of the force applied by the end effector, such that if the end effector has an insufficient force to grasp the object, the end effector may adjust the coefficient to have a better grasp on the object, as stated above by Takao.
14. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guthart et al. (US 20050200324 A1 hereinafter Guthart) in view of Park et al. (KR 102156655 B1 hereinafter Park (Note: Both the English and Korean translations of Park are included with this Office Action. Citations will be taken from the English translation unless otherwise stated.)), Shimodaira et al. (US 20160354925 A1 hereinafter Shimodaira), and Tan (US 20170361461 A1 hereinafter Tan), and further in view of Fudaba et al. (CN 102686366 A hereinafter Fudaba (Provided by Applicant's IDS, however, an English translation was used to cite and is attached herein)).
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Guthart teaches the robot teleoperation system of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the control system is configured to continuously calculate and adjust the control force F at a predetermined frequency.
However, Fudaba teaches wherein the control system is configured to continuously calculate and adjust the control force F at a predetermined frequency ([0263] via “information acquiring portion 26 the mounting slave hand 71 of the slave manipulator 32 upper slave force sensor 86 (see FIG. 3) value as the force information, via slave input/output IF30, using the built-in timer of the slave input and output IF30, via slave input/output IF30, each acquired every certain time. and the acquired force information to the correction unit 25 and force output correction part 27.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fudaba wherein the control system is configured to continuously calculate and adjust the control force F at a predetermined frequency. Doing so regularly corrects the force output from the robot, as stated above by Fudaba.
Examiner’s Note
15. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
16. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657