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 the Application No. 18/341,318 and the amendments filed on 12/23/2025.
3. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/28/2023 and 10/30/2023 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-20 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 11376743 B2 to Tuovinen, US 20190358817 A1 to Ghazaei, and US 20210298846 A1 to Dozeman fails to teach all of the amended limitations to the 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 and 20, as these claims contain similar limitations as claim 1, are still rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 is, in which will be described later.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, 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) 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuovinen et al. (US 11376743 B2 hereinafter Tuovinen) in view of Ghazaei Ardakani et al. (US 20190358817 A1 hereinafter Ghazaei) and Krasny et al. (US 20180297204 A1 hereinafter Krasny).
Regarding Claim 1, Tuovinen teaches a system for bilateral robot-mediated physical human-human interaction, comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions (Col. 9 lines 42-44, where “In an embodiment, the haptic terminal comprises a memory element operable to store the first touch pattern of the first person.”);
a processor executing one or more of the instructions stored on the memory (Col. 6 lines 41-49, where “The haptic terminal comprises a processing unit configured to use the received captured data to form a control signal. The term “processing unit” as used herein, relates to a computational element that is operable to respond to and process instructions. … The processing unit is coupled to various components of the haptic terminal and is configured to control the operation of the haptic terminal.”) to perform:
receiving an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the second robot portion acting as an operator that leads the first robot portion in the first scenario and wherein the first robot portion acts as an operator that leads the second robot portion in the second scenario (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 7 lines 61 – Col. 8 line 2, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm. In an example, the at least one actuator may include a motor, capable of rotating either in one or two directions (such as stepper motor). The touch replicator may also include gear arrangement and mechanical links operatively coupled to a shaft of the motor, for converting a rotary motion of the shaft of the motor to reciprocating motion of the touch replicator.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504 and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512 enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Tuovinen is silent on receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows the first robot portion in a second scenario; generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion.
However, Ghazaei teaches receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows the first robot portion in a second scenario ([0033] via “According to some embodiments, the control unit is configured to accomplish a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with according to any restricted and singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm. Bidirectional here means a practically simultaneous transfer of control signals such that the force interplay agrees with the models that may be non-causal (DAEs expressed in a declarative manner).”), ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine master external force data indicating a force interplay 2A (FIG. 2) between the operator 6 and the master robot arm. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the master robot arm and the operator. … Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) … and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the master robot arm. The control unit 5 is further configured to determine slave external force data indicating a force interplay 3A (FIG. 2) between the slave robot arm and the workpiece 4. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the slave robot arm and the workpiece. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) … and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the slave robot arm.”), ([0079] via “The haptic interface is generally described with reference to FIG. 2. … As illustrated in the figure, the master robot arm 2 is arranged to be in communication with the control unit 5 for receiving movement commands to the master robot arm 2 (e.g. via the controller 16) and for feedback of the position and/or torque of master robot arm 2. Further, the slave robot arm 3 is arranged to be in communication with the control unit 5 for communication of movement commands to the slave robot arm 5 (e.g. via the controller 16) and for feedback of the position and/or torque of slave robot arm 3. … When the operator 6
applies force on an arbitrary point, here referred to as an interaction point, of the master robot arm 2, the control unit 5 is configured to generate movements in both arms 2, 3 invoked by the applied force. The control unit 5 receives master external force data and slave external force data as indicated above. The slave robot arm 3 is arranged to work on the object 4, and the restrictions the slave robot arm 3 encounters are transferred, by the haptic interface, as haptic feedback to the operator 6 via the master robot arm 2. The haptic interface module 7 is thus configured to calculate physically consistent motions in both arms
2, 3.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the force/torque signals placed on the tool 20 as the wrench signals, as the wrench signal is described within paragraph [0042] of the specification of the instant application.).
Further, Krasny teaches generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion ([0029] via “As best seen in FIG. 3, teach pendant 130 includes an operator interface 200 with several keys including a forward key 210 and a backward key 220. During teach mode operation, several modes of controlling robot 110 are provided: a jog mode; a step mode; and a run mode. In jog mode, robot 110 can be moved around manually using teach pendant keys in operator interface 200.”), ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator 135 controls robot 400
directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”), (Note: In this scenario of Krasny, the Examiner interprets the first robot portion as the operator interface 200 and the second robot portion as the robot 400.),
wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion ([0008] via “In jog mode, the operator can press buttons on the teach pendant to move each joint of the robot. Alternatively, the operator can also use the buttons to move the tool around in the workspace. … If a collision is predicted, the robot's override speed is decreased from the desired speed set by the operator. As the robot continues to get closer to an obstacle, its override speed continues to decrease until it comes to a full stop. However, if the operator moves the robot in any direction that will not result in a collision (e.g., along a wall, if the wall is an obstacle, or back away from the wall), then the robot's speed is increased to allow motion in the indicated direction.”), ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator
135 controls robot 400 directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”); and
implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion ([0031] via “If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”).
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 Ghazaei wherein the processor performs: receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows the first robot portion in a second scenario. Doing so transfers the wrench signals experienced by each robot arm to the other side to enact proper feedback, as stated above by Ghazaei in paragraph [0079].
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 Krasny wherein the processor performs: generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion. By prioritizing certain constraints, the robot safely interacts with its dynamic environment, such as preventing collisions from happening, as stated by Krasny ([0017] via “The method also preferably includes reducing a speed of the robot as the robot approaches the objects in the environment and preventing collisions while the operator controls the robot directly using the keys in a jog mode. The robot is moved according to a program having program steps and acceleration parameters, and the motion of the robot is predicted based on the current destination position of a current program step, a speed of the robot, and the acceleration parameters. A speed of the robot is reduced as any component of the robot approaches the objects in the environment such that collisions are prevented.”).
Regarding Claim 2, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion.
However, Ghazaei teaches wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine master external force data indicating a force interplay 2A (FIG. 2) between the operator 6 and the master robot arm. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the master robot arm and the operator. … Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) (attached to the wrist and/or to one or several joints of the master robot arm) and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the master robot arm.”).
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 Ghazaei wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion. Doing so measures the wrench signal input by a human operator, as stated above by Ghazaei.
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, wherein the end-effector pose signal is provided by a second human interacting with the second robot portion (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504 and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512
enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, wherein the end-effector pose signal provided by a second human interacting with the second robot portion is indicative of a desired pose for the first robot portion (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504 and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512 enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion.
However, Krasny teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator 135 controls robot 400 directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted.”).
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 Krasny wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so controls and prevents the robot from performing unsafe actions, such as colliding with objects in the environment, as stated above by Krasny.
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion.
However, Krasny teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator 135 controls robot 400 directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted.”).
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 Krasny wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so controls and prevents the robot from performing unsafe actions, such as colliding with objects in the environment, as stated above by Krasny.
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, wherein: the processor receives an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the first robot portion (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504
and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512 enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Tuovinen is silent on wherein: the processor receives an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion.
However, Ghazaei teaches wherein: the processor receives an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine slave external force data indicating a force interplay 3A (FIG. 2) between the slave robot arm and the workpiece 4. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the slave robot arm and the workpiece. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) (attached to the wrist and/or to one or several joints of the master robot arm) and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the slave robot arm.”).
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 Ghazaei wherein: the processor receives an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion. Doing so measures the wrench signal experienced by interacting with a workpiece, as stated above by Ghazaei.
Regarding Claim 11, Tuovinen teaches a computer-implemented method for bilateral robot-mediated physical human-human interaction, comprising: receiving an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the second robot portion acting as an operator that leads the first robot portion in the first scenario and wherein the first robot portion acts as an operator that leads the second robot portion in the second scenario (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 7 lines 61 – Col. 8 line 2, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm. In an example, the at least one actuator may include a motor, capable of rotating either in one or two directions (such as stepper motor). The touch replicator may also include gear arrangement and mechanical links operatively coupled to a shaft of the motor, for converting a rotary motion of the shaft of the motor to reciprocating motion of the touch replicator.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504 and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512 enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Tuovinen is silent on receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario; generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion.
However, Ghazaei teaches receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario ([0033] via “According to some embodiments, the control unit is configured to accomplish a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with according to any restricted and singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm. Bidirectional here means a practically simultaneous transfer of control signals such that the force interplay agrees with the models that may be non-causal (DAEs expressed in a declarative manner).”), ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine master external force data indicating a force interplay 2A (FIG. 2) between the operator 6 and the master robot arm. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the master robot arm and the operator. … Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) … and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the master robot arm. The control unit 5 is further configured to determine slave external force data indicating a force interplay 3A (FIG. 2) between the slave robot arm and the workpiece 4. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the slave robot arm and the workpiece. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) … and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the slave robot arm.”), ([0079] via “The haptic interface is generally described with reference to FIG. 2. … As illustrated in the figure, the master robot arm 2 is arranged to be in communication with the control unit 5 for receiving movement commands to the master robot arm 2 (e.g. via the controller 16) and for feedback of the position and/or torque of master robot arm 2. Further, the slave robot arm 3 is arranged to be in communication with the control unit 5 for communication of movement commands to the slave robot arm 5 (e.g. via the controller 16) and for feedback of the position and/or torque of slave robot arm 3. … When the operator 6
applies force on an arbitrary point, here referred to as an interaction point, of the master robot arm 2, the control unit 5 is configured to generate movements in both arms 2, 3 invoked by the applied force. The control unit 5 receives master external force data and slave external force data as indicated above. The slave robot arm 3 is arranged to work on the object 4, and the restrictions the slave robot arm 3 encounters are transferred, by the haptic interface, as haptic feedback to the operator 6 via the master robot arm 2. The haptic interface module 7 is thus configured to calculate physically consistent motions in both arms 2, 3.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the force/torque signals placed on the tool 20 as the wrench signals, as the wrench signal is described within paragraph [0042] of the specification of the instant application.).
Further, Krasny teaches generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion ([0029] via “As best seen in FIG. 3, teach pendant 130 includes an operator interface 200 with several keys including a forward key 210 and a backward key 220. During teach mode operation, several modes of controlling robot 110 are provided: a jog mode; a step mode; and a run mode. In jog mode, robot 110 can be moved around manually using teach pendant keys in operator interface 200.”), ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator 135 controls robot 400
directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”), (Note: In this scenario of Krasny, the Examiner interprets the first robot portion as the operator interface 200 and the second robot portion as the robot 400.),
wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion ([0008] via “In jog mode, the operator can press buttons on the teach pendant to move each joint of the robot. Alternatively, the operator can also use the buttons to move the tool around in the workspace. … If a collision is predicted, the robot's override speed is decreased from the desired speed set by the operator. As the robot continues to get closer to an obstacle, its override speed continues to decrease until it comes to a full stop. However, if the operator moves the robot in any direction that will not result in a collision (e.g., along a wall, if the wall is an obstacle, or back away from the wall), then the robot's speed is increased to allow motion in the indicated direction.”), ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator
135 controls robot 400 directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”); and
implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion ([0031] via “If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”).
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 Ghazaei wherein the method comprises: receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario. Doing so transfers the wrench signals experienced by each robot arm to the other side to enact proper feedback, as stated above by Ghazaei in paragraph [0079].
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 Krasny wherein the method comprises: generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion. By prioritizing certain constraints, the robot safely interacts with its dynamic environment, such as preventing collisions from happening, as stated by Krasny ([0017] via “The method also preferably includes reducing a speed of the robot as the robot approaches the objects in the environment and preventing collisions while the operator controls the robot directly using the keys in a jog mode. The robot is moved according to a program having program steps and acceleration parameters, and the motion of the robot is predicted based on the current destination position of a current program step, a speed of the robot, and the acceleration parameters. A speed of the robot is reduced as any component of the robot approaches the objects in the environment such that collisions are prevented.”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion.
However, Ghazaei teaches wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine master external force data indicating a force interplay 2A (FIG. 2) between the operator 6 and the master robot arm. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the master robot arm and the operator. … Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) (attached to the wrist and/or to one or several joints of the master robot arm) and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the master robot arm.”).
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 Ghazaei wherein the wrench force of the interaction wrench signal is indicative of an interaction between a first human and the first robot portion. Doing so measures the wrench signal input by a human operator, as stated above by Ghazaei.
Regarding Claim 13, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, wherein the end-effector pose signal is provided by a second human interacting with the second robot portion (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504 and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512 enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, wherein the end-effector pose signal provided by a second human interacting with the second robot portion is indicative of a desired pose for the first robot portion (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504 and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512 enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Regarding Claim 15, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion.
However, Krasny teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator 135 controls robot 400 directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted.”).
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 Krasny wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a joint torque limitation, a joint velocity limitation, a joint acceleration limitation, or a joint position limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so controls and prevents the robot from performing unsafe actions, such as colliding with objects in the environment, as stated above by Krasny.
Regarding Claim 16, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion.
However, Krasny teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator 135 controls robot 400 directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted.”).
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 Krasny wherein the constraint signal is indicative of a space limitation for the second robot portion. Doing so controls and prevents the robot from performing unsafe actions, such as colliding with objects in the environment, as stated above by Krasny.
Regarding Claim 18, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, comprising: receiving an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the first robot portion (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504 and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512 enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Tuovinen is silent on receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion.
However, Ghazaei teaches receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine slave external force data indicating a force interplay 3A (FIG. 2) between the slave robot arm and the workpiece 4. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the slave robot arm and the workpiece. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) (attached to the wrist and/or to one or several joints of the master robot arm) and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the slave robot arm.”).
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 Ghazaei wherein the computer-implemented method comprises: receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with the second robot portion. Doing so measures the wrench signal experienced by interacting with a workpiece, as stated above by Ghazaei.
Regarding Claim 20, Tuovinen teaches a system for bilateral robot-mediated physical human-human interaction, comprising: a memory storing one or more instructions (Col. 9 lines 42-44, where “In an embodiment, the haptic terminal comprises a memory element operable to store the first touch pattern of the first person.”);
a processor executing one or more of the instructions stored on the memory (Col. 6 lines 41-49, where “The haptic terminal comprises a processing unit configured to use the received captured data to form a control signal. The term “processing unit” as used herein, relates to a computational element that is operable to respond to and process instructions. … The processing unit is coupled to various components of the haptic terminal and is configured to control the operation of the haptic terminal.”) to perform:
generating and transmitting an end-effector pose signal indicative of a pose associated with the second robot portion acting as an operator that leads the first robot portion in the first scenario and wherein the first robot portion acts as an operator that leads the second robot portion in the second scenario (Col. 4 lines 38-45, where “As mentioned herein above, the present disclosure provides the system for providing remote touch of the first person to the second person. The first person may be a person that wants to provide his or her touch, and the second person may be person who receives the touch from the first person. Additionally, in an embodiment, the second person may provide touch to the first person, or the first person and the second person may provide touch to each other.”), (Col. 7 lines 61 – Col. 8 line 2, where “Optionally, the touch replicator comprises at least one actuator configured to move the arm in respect to a pivot point, the pivot point arranged on the second end of the arm. In an example, the at least one actuator may include a motor, capable of rotating either in one or two directions (such as stepper motor). The touch replicator may also include gear arrangement and mechanical links operatively coupled to a shaft of the motor, for converting a rotary motion of the shaft of the motor to reciprocating motion of the touch replicator.”), (Col. 13 lines 12-30, where “Referring to FIG. 5, illustrated is schematic illustrations of a haptic terminal 500, in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. As shown, the haptic terminal is in shape of a teddy bear and comprises arms 504 and 506. The arm 504 is configured to move in order to replicate a remote touch. … As shown, the actuator 512 enables the arm 504 to move in a laterally upward and downward directions shown with an arrow ‘A’. Also, the arm 504 is also configured to move in two additional directions to enable movement in a three-dimensional space to conform to body anatomy of the second person.”).
Tuovinen is silent on receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario; receiving a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion.
However, Ghazaei teaches receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario ([0033] via “According to some embodiments, the control unit is configured to accomplish a bidirectional transfer of force and torque between the master robot arm and the slave robot arm such that haptic feedback is complied with according to any restricted and singular configuration of the slave robot arm and/or master robot arm. Bidirectional here means a practically simultaneous transfer of control signals such that the force interplay agrees with the models that may be non-causal (DAEs expressed in a declarative manner).”), ([0078] via “The control unit 5 is further configured to determine master external force data indicating a force interplay 2A (FIG. 2) between the operator 6 and the master robot arm. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the master robot arm and the operator. … Alternatively, the master external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 20 (FIG. 2) … and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the master robot arm. The control unit 5 is further configured to determine slave external force data indicating a force interplay 3A (FIG. 2) between the slave robot arm and the workpiece 4. The force interplay here indicates a bidirectional force interaction between the slave robot arm and the workpiece. … Alternatively, the slave external force data is obtained from one or several force/torque sensors 30 (FIG. 2) … and/or joint force data and/or motor signal data from the slave robot arm.”), ([0079] via “The haptic interface is generally described with reference to FIG. 2. … As illustrated in the figure, the master robot arm 2 is arranged to be in communication with the control unit 5 for receiving movement commands to the master robot arm 2 (e.g. via the controller 16) and for feedback of the position and/or torque of master robot arm 2. Further, the slave robot arm 3 is arranged to be in communication with the control unit 5 for communication of movement commands to the slave robot arm 5 (e.g. via the controller 16) and for feedback of the position and/or torque of slave robot arm 3. … When the operator 6
applies force on an arbitrary point, here referred to as an interaction point, of the master robot arm 2, the control unit 5 is configured to generate movements in both arms 2, 3 invoked by the applied force. The control unit 5 receives master external force data and slave external force data as indicated above. The slave robot arm 3 is arranged to work on the object 4, and the restrictions the slave robot arm 3 encounters are transferred, by the haptic interface, as haptic feedback to the operator 6 via the master robot arm 2. The haptic interface module 7 is thus configured to calculate physically consistent motions in both arms 2, 3.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the force/torque signals placed on the tool 20 as the wrench signals, as the wrench signal is described within paragraph [0042] of the specification of the instant application.).
Further, Krasny teaches receiving a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion ([0029] via “As best seen in FIG. 3, teach pendant 130 includes an operator interface 200 with several keys including a forward key 210 and a backward key 220. During teach mode operation, several modes of controlling robot 110 are provided: a jog mode; a step mode; and a run mode. In jog mode, robot 110 can be moved around manually using teach pendant keys in operator interface 200.”), ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator 135 controls robot 400
directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”), (Note: In this scenario of Krasny, the Examiner interprets the first robot portion as the operator interface 200 and the second robot portion as the robot 400.),
wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion ([0008] via “In jog mode, the operator can press buttons on the teach pendant to move each joint of the robot. Alternatively, the operator can also use the buttons to move the tool around in the workspace. … If a collision is predicted, the robot's override speed is decreased from the desired speed set by the operator. As the robot continues to get closer to an obstacle, its override speed continues to decrease until it comes to a full stop. However, if the operator moves the robot in any direction that will not result in a collision (e.g., along a wall, if the wall is an obstacle, or back away from the wall), then the robot's speed is increased to allow motion in the indicated direction.”), ([0031] via “Controller 120 is further configured to reduce a speed of arm 410 when arm 410 approaches the collision geometry (i.e., workpiece 450) such that collisions are prevented while operator
135 controls robot 400 directly using keys of operator interface 200 in jog mode. … If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”); and
implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion ([0031] via “If the robot's position along this projected path, shown by an arrow 480, collides with anything, such as workpiece 450 or another obstacle, a rendering of robot 400 is presented on computer 140 warning of a potential collision, and the algorithm begins decreasing the speed of robot 400 from a desired speed through a range of override speeds. As robot 400 continues to approach workpiece 450, the override speed is decreased until robot 400 is halted. Motion that does not include a predicted collision (including motion that may be close to the workpiece but not toward it, e.g., along a straight edge) causes the algorithm to increase the speed of robot 400 back to the desired value.”).
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 Ghazaei wherein the processor performs: receiving an interaction wrench signal indicative of a wrench force associated with a first robot portion acting as a partner that follows a second robot portion in a first scenario and wherein the second robot portion acts as a partner that follows a first robot portion in a second scenario. Doing so transfers the wrench signals experienced by each robot arm to the other side to enact proper feedback, as stated above by Ghazaei in paragraph [0079].
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 Krasny wherein the processor performs: receiving a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion, wherein the constraint signal is assigned a priority based on an environment associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the first robot portion as feedback on the second robot portion. By prioritizing certain constraints, the robot safely interacts with its dynamic environment, such as preventing collisions from happening, as stated by Krasny ([0017] via “The method also preferably includes reducing a speed of the robot as the robot approaches the objects in the environment and preventing collisions while the operator controls the robot directly using the keys in a jog mode. The robot is moved according to a program having program steps and acceleration parameters, and the motion of the robot is predicted based on the current destination position of a current program step, a speed of the robot, and the acceleration parameters. A speed of the robot is reduced as any component of the robot approaches the objects in the environment such that collisions are prevented.”).
9. Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuovinen et al. (US 11376743 B2 hereinafter Tuovinen) in view of Ghazaei Ardakani et al. (US 20190358817 A1 hereinafter Ghazaei) and Krasny et al. (US 20180297204 A1 hereinafter Krasny), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20160229050 A1 hereinafter Wang).
Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion.
However, Wang teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion ([0036] via “At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated; if force limiting is active, but Fm is smaller than 20% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to not active; otherwise no changes to the force limiting state.”).
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 Wang wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion. Incorporating an interaction force limitation prevents damage to the robot from excessive forces, as stated by Wang ([0031] via “Some controlling devices have very limited force/torque output that a human can easily overcome. A human operator 14d can continue pushing a fully loaded controlling device 14a to the level that causes a large contact force to occur at the remote site between the robot 12a and its environment. Without a force safe guard, may cause damage to the robot 12a, the tooling 12d, the work piece 12e or other items in the robot environment.”).
Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion.
However, Wang teaches wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion ([0036] via “At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated; if force limiting is active, but Fm is smaller than 20% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to not active; otherwise no changes to the force limiting state.”).
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 Wang wherein the constraint signal is indicative of an interaction force limitation for the second robot portion. Incorporating an interaction force limitation prevents damage to the robot from excessive forces, as stated by Wang ([0031] via “Some controlling devices have very limited force/torque output that a human can easily overcome. A human operator 14d can continue pushing a fully loaded controlling device 14a to the level that causes a large contact force to occur at the remote site between the robot 12a and its environment. Without a force safe guard, may cause damage to the robot 12a, the tooling 12d, the work piece 12e or other items in the robot environment.”).
10. Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuovinen et al. (US 11376743 B2 hereinafter Tuovinen) in view of Ghazaei Ardakani et al. (US 20190358817 A1 hereinafter Ghazaei) and Krasny et al. (US 20180297204 A1 hereinafter Krasny), and further in view of Dozeman et al. (US 20210298846 A1 hereinafter Dozeman).
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 8, but is silent on wherein: the processor generates a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and the processor implements the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion.
However, Dozeman teaches wherein: the processor generates a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and the processor implements the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion ([0106] via “If a collision is detected, then the manual mode or the semi-autonomous mode (depending on which input was actuated), remains disabled and the control system 60 acts to provide guidance to the user on the situation and how the tool 20 could be moved to place the tool 20 back in compliance with the virtual boundary 71. ... The guidance to the user may be in the form of user feedback, ... The collision check can be periodically or continually repeated, and if the tool 20 is returned to being in compliance with the virtual boundary 71, the manual or semi-autonomous modes can be enabled and the user feedback will cease. The control system 60 may automatically switch the manipulator 14 from the boundary-disabled state to the boundary-enabled state upon detecting that the tool 20 has returned to compliance with the virtual boundary 71. In some versions, automated guidance may be provided by the control system 60 to autonomously move the tool 20 to a location in compliance with the virtual boundary 71.”), ([0142] via “If the second type of collision check indicates that the tool 20 is in violation of the virtual boundary 71, then a recovery mode is enabled and a recovery signal and associated target state is sent to the guide handler 94 that can then generate the user feedback previously described to guide the user into placing the tool 20 into compliance with the virtual boundary 71. While the tool 20 is in violation of the virtual boundary 71, the desired operational mode of the manipulator 14 (e.g., the manual mode or the semi-autonomous mode) may be disabled.”).
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 Dozeman wherein: the processor generates a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and the processor implements the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion. Doing so recognizes when a constraint of the first robot portion is violated, and takes action on both the first and second robot portions to correct this violation, as stated by Dozeman in both citations.
Regarding Claim 19, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the computer-implemented method for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 18, but is silent on the method comprising: generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion.
However, Dozeman teaches generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion ([0106] via “If a collision is detected, then the manual mode or the semi-autonomous mode (depending on which input was actuated), remains disabled and the control system 60 acts to provide guidance to the user on the situation and how the tool 20 could be moved to place the tool 20 back in compliance with the virtual boundary 71. ... The guidance to the user may be in the form of user feedback, ... The collision check can be periodically or continually repeated, and if the tool 20 is returned to being in compliance with the virtual boundary 71, the manual or semi-autonomous modes can be enabled and the user feedback will cease. The control system 60 may automatically switch the manipulator 14 from the boundary-disabled state to the boundary-enabled state upon detecting that the tool 20 has returned to compliance with the virtual boundary 71. In some versions, automated guidance may be provided by the control system 60 to autonomously move the tool 20 to a location in compliance with the virtual boundary 71.”), ([0142] via “If the second type of collision check indicates that the tool 20 is in violation of the virtual boundary 71, then a recovery mode is enabled and a recovery signal and associated target state is sent to the guide handler 94 that can then generate the user feedback previously described to guide the user into placing the tool 20 into compliance with the virtual boundary 71. While the tool 20 is in violation of the virtual boundary 71, the desired operational mode of the manipulator 14 (e.g., the manual mode or the semi-autonomous mode) may be disabled.”).
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 Dozeman wherein the method comprises: generating a constraint signal indicative of a constraint associated with the second robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the first robot portion; and implementing the constraint associated with the second robot portion as feedback on the first robot portion. Doing so recognizes when a constraint of the first robot portion is violated, and takes action on both the first and second robot portions to correct this violation, as stated by Dozeman in both citations.
11. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuovinen et al. (US 11376743 B2 hereinafter Tuovinen) in view of Ghazaei Ardakani et al. (US 20190358817 A1 hereinafter Ghazaei) and Krasny et al. (US 20180297204 A1 hereinafter Krasny), and further in view of Matsudo (US 20230381950 A1 hereinafter Matsudo).
Regarding Claim 10, modified reference Tuovinen teaches the system for robot-mediated physical human-human interaction of claim 1, but is silent on wherein: the processor generates the constraint signal to be indicative of a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion; the processor prioritizes the constraint and the second constraint based on whether the first robot portion is acting as the operator or the partner; and implementing the constraint and the second constraint.
However, Matsudo teaches wherein: the processor generates the constraint signal to be indicative of a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion ([0052] via “The setting unit 43
sets a scene that includes, as configuration elements, a plurality of limit parameters for limiting the motion of the robot 10 based on limit parameters input by the user. Consequently, by inputting the plurality of limit parameters, which are the configuration elements of the scene, the user can collectively set the plurality of limit parameters for the whole scene.”);
the processor prioritizes the constraint and the second constraint based on whether the first robot portion is acting as the operator or the partner ([0054] via “When the switching unit 32 causes the display unit 41 to display the limit parameters (a maximum speed of 60 and a maximum torque of 60) that are set to the scene (such as Scene1) to be applied to the robot
10, it causes the display unit 41 to display the limit parameters in the foreground. In other words, the second limit parameter set is displayed in the foreground. As a result, even when the display unit 41 is displaying various information relating to the robot 10 (such as the simulation image, the motion program, and other information), the user can be made to give priority to confirming the limit parameters.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets that if the person was not the user, then the person would not be able to confirm the limit parameters in the same way that the user would.); and
implementing the constraint and the second constraint ([0052] via “Consequently, by inputting the plurality of limit parameters, which are the configuration elements of the scene, the user can collectively set the plurality of limit parameters for the whole scene. … The motion unit 33 causes the robot 10 to move in a state where the motion of the robot 10 is limited by the limit parameters set to the scene applied to the robot 10. Therefore, the robot 10 can be appropriately controlled based on the set limit parameters.”).
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 Matsudo wherein: the processor generates the constraint signal to be indicative of a second constraint associated with the first robot portion based on the end-effector pose signal associated with the second robot portion; the processor prioritizes the constraint and the second constraint based on whether the first robot portion is acting as the operator or the partner; and implementing the constraint and the second constraint. Doing so incorporates appropriate control of the robot based on determined robot limits, as stated above by Matsudo in paragraph [0052].
Examiner’s Note
12. 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 & Associate s,
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
13. 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.
14. 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