DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 7, it is unclear what a force in Cartesian orientation value is. For the purposes of examination forces represented in Cartesian direction and orientation will be interpreted as Cartesian forces and torques.
Dependent claims 8-13 are rejected under the same rationale by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Meissner (US 2018/0200880).
As per claim 1, Meissner discloses a robotic system comprising:
control circuitry communicatively coupled to a robotic manipulator and configured to cause actuation of one or more actuators of the robotic manipulator (see at least para. 54 for robot 2 controlled by robot controller 3), the control circuitry being configured to:
determine a manual force on the robotic manipulator (see at least para. 56 for determined manual force impressed by a user); and
control actuation of the one or more actuators of the robotic manipulator based at least in part on the manual force (see at least para. 15 and 56 for controlling robot based on an external force exerted on the robot).
As per claim 5, Meissner further discloses wherein:
the robotic manipulator comprises:
an end effector (tool 13);
first and second robotic arm links (links 5-12);
an articulatable joint connecting the first and second robotic arm links (pivot joints 4); and
one or more force sensors associated with the joint (see at least para. 9 and 56 for force or torque sensors in the joints); and
the control circuitry is configured to determine the manual force based on output from the one or more force sensors associated with the joint (see at least para. 56 for measuring external force F using force or torque sensors).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner in view of He (US 2017/0042730).
As per claim 2, Meissner is silent regarding, but He teaches wherein said controlling actuation of the one or more actuators involves causing the one or more actuators to move the robotic manipulator at a speed that is proportional to the manual force (see at least para. 10 for admittance velocity control wherein user input force control velocity of which the robot follows the user motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Meissner with He because it allows for the user to control the velocity with the same hand used for controlling motion without need for a separate physical input which provides for ease of use.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner in view of Heitmann (US 2016/0016314).
As per claim 3, Meissner is silent regarding, but Heitmann teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to stop motion of the one or more actuators when the manual force ceases (see at least para. 18 for maintaining new pose when guiding force ceases during a mode when the robot is moved by manually applying a guiding force to the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Meissner with Heitmann because it provides for a safety function in that the robot will not move by itself when a user is no longer imparting a force on the robot which reduces risk of damage.
As per claim 6, Meissner is silent regarding, but Heitmann teaches wherein the manual force is determined at least in part by modifying the output from the one or more force sensors to implement at least one of: removing a gravity component; and applying a torque deadband (see at least para. 18 for gravity compensation control which is effectively removing a gravity component by applying a force/torque deadband since the robot will maintain pose, by counteracting the external force due to gravitational force, when the guiding force ceases and will move by application of a guiding force, which would be external forces exceeding the gravitational force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Meissner with Heitmann because it provides for a safety function in that the robot will not move by itself, such as by due to gravitational forces, when a user is no longer imparting a force on the robot which reduces risk of damage.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner in view of Keller (WO 2016193217).
As per claim 4, Meissner is silent regarding, but Keller teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to limit the actuation of the one or more actuators to prevent movement of the robotic manipulator to a space within a virtual boundary (see at least pg. 2, para. 5, for preventing a virtual wall from being exceeded during manual guidance of a robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Meissner with Keller because it provides a safety function wherein the robot cannot travel into restricted areas which reduces the risk of damage.
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meissner in view of Winkler (“Novel Joint Space Force Guidance Algorithm With Laboratory Robot System”).
As per claim 7, Meissner is silent regarding, but Winkler teaches wherein:
the control circuitry is further configured to convert output from the one or more force sensors associated with the joint of the robotic manipulator to Cartesian direction and orientation values representing an apparent reference point force associated with the end effector of the robotic manipulator (see at least section 2 for measuring forces and torques acting on the end effector and transforming voltages from the force/torque sensor into Cartesian force and torque values; see at least section 3 for transforming these Cartesian force and torque values into joint space); and
said controlling actuation of the one or more actuators is based on the apparent reference point force (see at least sections 3.4 and 4 for force guidance control of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Meissner with Winkler because it allows for conversion of the analog sensor data to digital data to use for processing in controlling the robot.
As per claim 9, Meissner is silent regarding, but Winkler teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine an adjusted reference point force by applying a deadband to the apparent reference point force (see at least section 3.1 for gravity compensation for force and torque).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Meissner with Winkler because force and torque components of the gravity vector change as the orientation of the end effector changes and therefore must be removed from force/torque sensor readings to determine actual external force sans gravitation force.
As per claim 11, Winkler further teaches wherein: the control circuitry is further configured to determine one or more joint positioning commands based on the apparent reference point force; and said controlling actuation of the one or more actuators of the robotic manipulator is performed using the one or more joint positioning commands (see at least sections 3.4 and 4 for force guidance control of the robot).
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (WO 2016193217).
As per claim 14, Keller (WO 2016/193217) teaches system, comprising:
a robotic manipulator comprising at least one sensor configured to provide output indicative of force on the robotic manipulator (see at least pg. 2, para. 3, for force/torque sensors for measuring force/torques at the joints during manual guiding of a robot); and
control circuitry (robot controller 10) configured to:
detect a manual force on the robotic manipulator based on output from the at least one sensor (see at least pg. 2, para. 3, for force/torque sensors for measuring force/torques at the joints during manual guiding of a robot); and
in response to the manual force,
Keller is not explicit regarding accelerating the movement in response to the manual force.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the robot is not in motion when the manual force is applied then the robot will be accelerated into motion when manual force is applied.
As per claim 17, Keller further teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to determine a user intent based on the manual force (under broadest reasonable interpretation the system of Keller determines a user intent based on the manual force as the robot moves in the desired direction depending on the force strength and direction, the user intent being moving the robot in the desired direction).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (WO 2016193217) in view of Nihei (US 2005/0222714).
As per claim 15, Keller is silent regarding, but Nihei teaches wherein said accelerating movement of the robotic manipulator is in response to engagement with a user input mechanism associated with the robotic manipulator (see at least para. 27 for deadman safety switch that needs to be depressed in order for the robot to move).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Keller with Nihei because it provides for a safety function in that the robot will not move unless the operator is attentive and holding the deadman switch to keep it activated.
As per claim 16, Nihei further teaches wherein the user input mechanism is a button on the robotic manipulator (see at least para. 27 for deadman safety switch or button that needs to be depressed in order for the robot to move).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,016,900. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope than the patent claims.
As per claim 1, claim 1 of patent ‘900 teaches all the limitations.
As per claim 5, claim 2 of patent ‘900 teaches all the limitations.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,016,900 in view of He (US 2017/0042730).
As per claim 2, patent ‘900 is silent regarding, but He teaches wherein said controlling actuation of the one or more actuators involves causing the one or more actuators to move the robotic manipulator at a speed that is proportional to the manual force (see at least para. 10 for admittance velocity control wherein user input force control velocity of which the robot follows the user motion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘900 with He because it allows for the user to control the velocity with the same hand used for controlling motion without need for a separate physical input which provides for ease of use.
Claim 3 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,016,900 in view of Heitmann (US 2016/0016314).
As per claim 3, patent ‘900 is silent regarding, but Heitmann teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to stop motion of the one or more actuators when the manual force ceases (see at least para. 18 for maintaining new pose when guiding force ceases during a mode when the robot is moved by manually applying a guiding force to the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘900 with Heitmann because it provides for a safety function in that the robot will not move by itself when a user is no longer imparting a force on the robot which reduces risk of damage.
As per claim 6, patent ‘900 is silent regarding, but Heitmann teaches wherein the manual force is determined at least in part by modifying the output from the one or more force sensors to implement at least one of: removing a gravity component; and applying a torque deadband (see at least para. 18 for gravity compensation control which is effectively removing a gravity component by applying a force/torque deadband since the robot will maintain pose, by counteracting the external force due to gravitational force, when the guiding force ceases and will move by application of a guiding force, which would be external forces exceeding the gravitational force).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘900 with Heitmann because it provides for a safety function in that the robot will not move by itself, such as by due to gravitational forces, when a user is no longer imparting a force on the robot which reduces risk of damage.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,016,900 in view of Keller (WO 2016193217).
As per claim 4, patent ‘900 is silent regarding, but Keller teaches wherein the control circuitry is further configured to limit the actuation of the one or more actuators to prevent movement of the robotic manipulator to a space within a virtual boundary (see at least pg. 2, para. 5, for preventing a virtual wall from being exceeded during manual guidance of a robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘900 with Keller because it provides a safety function wherein the robot cannot travel into restricted areas which reduces the risk of damage.
Claims 7, 9, and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,016,900 in view of Winkler (“Novel Joint Space Force Guidance Algorithm With Laboratory Robot System”).
As per claim 7, patent ‘900 is silent regarding, but Winkler teaches wherein:
the control circuitry is further configured to convert output from the one or more force sensors associated with the joint of the robotic manipulator to Cartesian direction and orientation values representing an apparent reference point force associated with the end effector of the robotic manipulator (see at least section 2 for measuring forces and torques acting on the end effector and transforming voltages from the force/torque sensor into Cartesian force and torque values; see at least section 3 for transforming these Cartesian force and torque values into joint space); and
said controlling actuation of the one or more actuators is based on the apparent reference point force (see at least sections 3.4 and 4 for force guidance control of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘900 with Winkler because it allows for conversion of the analog sensor data to digital data to use for processing in controlling the robot.
As per claim 9, patent ‘900 is silent regarding, but Winkler teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine an adjusted reference point force by applying a deadband to the apparent reference point force (see at least section 3.1 for gravity compensation for force and torque).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify patent ‘900 with Winkler because force and torque components of the gravity vector change as the orientation of the end effector changes and therefore must be removed from force/torque sensor readings to determine actual external force sans gravitation force.
As per claim 11, Winkler further teaches wherein: the control circuitry is further configured to determine one or more joint positioning commands based on the apparent reference point force; and said controlling actuation of the one or more actuators of the robotic manipulator is performed using the one or more joint positioning commands (see at least sections 3.4 and 4 for force guidance control of the robot).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, neither alone or in combination, teach all the limitations of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/ PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619