DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
This is a second Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications on 2026/07/06 because claims 5 and 13 were previously rejected under 102, but should have been rejected under 103 by nature of their dependency on claims 4 and 12 respectively.
No claims are amended. Claims 1 – 16 are pending and are addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gregg et al. (US 20190328551 A1) in view of Aguirre-Ollinger, et al. (US 20080188907 A1).
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 10, 12, and 14 – 16 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gregg, et. al. (US 20190328551 A1) does not teach the following:
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10 and 14, Applicant argues that
“generating a control signal for a quasi-direct-drive (QDD) actuator of the wearable robot, the control signal determined by a collocated impedance controller based upon current and angle of rotation of the QDD actuator and a reference trajectory angle;” is not taught by the prior art. Gregg however, discloses a “Due to its inherent simplicity and robustness, a PD controller is the most common choice for the joint position control of robotic systems” (Gregg, [0058]). PD controllers use error, or the difference between the current and preferred position/heading, to calculate how to move. This would include both the current position, and a “reference trajectory angle”.
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, Applicant argues that
the collocated impedance controller comprises:
an impedance controller configured to generate a reference torque based upon a comparison of the angle of rotation and the reference trajectory angle; and
a current controller configured to control current supplied to the QDD based upon a comparison of the current of the QDD actuator and a reference current associated with the reference torque.
is not taught by Aguirre-Ollinger. Examiner agrees that Aguirre-Ollinger uses a torque sensor to detect a reference torque. However, Aguirre-Ollinger also discloses that “Implementing an active impedance controller can be accomplished in a number of ways. In one embodiment, the controller comprises an admittance-based trajectory command generator and a force/torque sensor in a feedback loop with the exoskeleton (including elements to control the actuator's motor) and the user.” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0061]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date there is a simple way to calculate torque through the following known equation: Torque = (radius)*(applied force)*(sin(angle)). Aguirre-Ollinger specifies knowing the radius, the applied force, and the intended vs. actual angle. See Figure 2, “The active impedance element generates a commanded angle velocity {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.c.” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0062]), and “In another embodiment, an active impedance controller comprises an impedance-based torque command generator and a velocity sensor in a feedback loop with the exoskeleton (including elements to control the actuator's motor) and the user.” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0063]).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, see Response to Argument for Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, Applicant argues that Aguirre-Ollinger does not disclose “the reference trajectory angle is provided by a high-level controller of the wearable robot.”. Applicant argues that Aguirre-Ollinger does not teach “levels of controllers”. Examiner agrees that Aguirre-Ollinger does not specifically disclose “levels of controllers”, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date that “high-level” does not necessarily imply multiple levels, rather the simple definition of being above any lower level components (ie. sensors, acutators, etc.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to use sensors and actuators that have some lower level control subsystems allowing external control and communication.
Regarding Claims 14, 15 and 16 Applicant argues that
“generating a control signal for a quasi-direct-drive (QDD) actuator of the wearable robot, the control signal determined by a collocated impedance controller based upon current and angle of rotation of the QDD actuator and a reference trajectory angle;” is not taught by the prior art. Gregg however, discloses a “Due to its inherent simplicity and robustness, a PD controller is the most common choice for the joint position control of robotic systems” (Gregg, [0058]). PD controllers use error, or the difference between the current and preferred position/heading, to calculate how to move. This would include both the current position, and a “reference trajectory angle”.
See rejections below.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Gregg, et. al. (US 20190328551 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gregg.
Regarding Claim 1:
A method for control of a wearable robot without torque sensors, comprising:
generating a control signal for a quasi-direct-drive (QDD) actuator of the wearable robot, the control signal determined by a collocated impedance controller based upon current and angle of rotation of the QDD actuator and a reference trajectory angle; and
Gregg discloses “The first joint actuator 105 may be a quasi-direct drive actuator” (Gregg, [0042]) and “users expend more metabolic energy wearing a mass that is more distal on the body” (Gregg, [0051]). Gregg additionally discloses “An alternative approach which may be commonly used in control of a powered prosthesis is impedance control… θ is the joint angle… Note that τ.sub.m=nk.sub.ti.sub.m, where k.sub.t is the motor's torque constant and i.sub.m is its current… ” (Gregg, [0059]).
adjusting operation of the QDD actuator based upon the control signal.
See Figure 6 (Gregg).
Regarding Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein current supplied to the QDD actuator is adjusted in response to the control signal.
Gregg discloses “The motor is driven by a 25/100 Solo Gold Twitter motor driver (Elmo Motion Control, Petah Tikva, Israel in the example), which has a rated current of 17.6 A and a peak current of 35.2 A.” (Gregg, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein the QDD actuator comprises a high torque density motor coupled to a low inertia transmission coupled to a joint of the wearable robot.
Gregg discloses “High-torque, low-reduction-ratio actuators can have several benefits for control and efficiency of robotic legs. Lower mechanical impedance (inertias and frictional losses), which may characterize some of these joint actuators may minimize the effect of unmodeled dynamics… Force control in these joint actuators can be comparable to or better than series elastic actuators without their design and manufacturing complexities.” (Gregg, [0029]).
Regarding Claim 9:
A wearable robot, comprising:
a support structure configured to interface with a user;
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “The "p" subscript refers to the "interaction port p," a contact point between the user and the exoskeleton (e.g., the ankle coupling shown in FIG. 2).” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0048]).
a quasi-direct-drive (QDD) actuator coupled to the support structure; and processing circuitry configured to:
generate a control signal for the QDD actuator, the control signal determined by a collocated controller based upon current and angle of rotation of the QDD actuator and a reference trajectory angle, where the collocated controller is a collocated impedance controller, a collocated direct torque controller or a collocated admittance controller; and
Gregg discloses “The first joint actuator 105 may be a quasi-direct drive actuator” (Gregg, [0042]) and “users expend more metabolic energy wearing a mass that is more distal on the body” (Gregg, [0051]). Gregg additionally discloses “An alternative approach which may be commonly used in control of a powered prosthesis is impedance control… θ is the joint angle… Note that τ.sub.m=nk.sub.ti.sub.m, where k.sub.t is the motor's torque constant and i.sub.m is its current… ” (Gregg, [0059]).
adjust operation of the QDD actuator based upon the control signal.
See Figure 6 (Gregg).
Regarding Claim 10:
The wearable robot of claim 9, wherein current supplied to the QDD actuator is adjusted in response to the control signal.
Gregg discloses “The motor is driven by a 25/100 Solo Gold Twitter motor driver (Elmo Motion Control, Petah Tikva, Israel in the example), which has a rated current of 17.6 A and a peak current of 35.2 A.” (Gregg, [0053]).
Regarding Claim 14:
The wearable robot of claim 9, wherein the QDD actuator comprises a high torque density motor coupled to a low inertia transmission coupled to a joint of the wearable robot.
Gregg discloses “High-torque, low-reduction-ratio actuators can have several benefits for control and efficiency of robotic legs. Lower mechanical impedance (inertias and frictional losses), which may characterize some of these joint actuators may minimize the effect of unmodeled dynamics… Force control in these joint actuators can be comparable to or better than series elastic actuators without their design and manufacturing complexities.” (Gregg, [0029]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 – 5, 7, 8, 11 – 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg, et. al. (US 20190328551 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gregg, in view of Aguirre-Ollinger, et. al. (US 20080188907 A1), hereinafter referred to as Aguirre-Ollinger.
Regarding Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein the collocated impedance controller comprises:
an impedance controller configured to generate a reference torque based upon a comparison of the angle of rotation and the reference trajectory angle; and
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “The active impedance element generates a commanded angle velocity {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.c. The commanded angle velocity is possibly combined with its integral and/or derivative to form a commanded kinematic trajectory q.sub.c (comprising angular position, angular velocity and/or angular acceleration) for the exoskeleton… The commanded kinematic trajectory and the interaction torque or force .tau..sub.p is used to control the motor of the exoskeleton, possibly through a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) or other control mechanism.” (Aguirre-Ollinger , [0062]).
a current controller configured to control current supplied to the QDD based upon a comparison of the current of the QDD actuator and a reference current associated with the reference torque.
Gregg discloses “An alternative approach which may be commonly used in control of a powered prosthesis is impedance control. The most common way to perform joint impedance control is using joint torque feedback to produce the desired behavior… Note that τ.sub.m=nk.sub.ti.sub.m, where k.sub.t is the motor's torque constant and i.sub.m is its current, commanded to the driver.” (Gregg, [0059]).
Although Gregg discloses a system for controlling a QDD actuator, Gregg does not disclose a method of moving towards a target angle. Aguirre-Ollinger, however, discloses “The commanded kinematic trajectory and the interaction torque or force .tau..sub.p is used to control the motor of the exoskeleton” ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Gregg with the impedance controller and target angle from Aguirre-Ollinger because within both systems, there would be a target position to move towards. Aguirre-Ollinger discloses a method of doing so through its impedance controller and moving towards a target angle, however, as Gregg is using a hinged machine as well, and is capable of moving from one position to another, so it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a target “angle” to go from one position to another in the system taught by Gregg.
Regarding Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein the reference trajectory angle is provided by a high-level controller of the wearable robot.
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “The active impedance element generates a commanded angle velocity {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.c.” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0062]).
Although Gregg discloses a system for controlling a QDD actuator, Gregg does not disclose a method of determining a target angle. Aguirre-Ollinger, however, discloses “impedance element generates a commanded angle” ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Gregg with the impedance controller and target angle from Aguirre-Ollinger because within both systems, there would be a target position to move towards. Aguirre-Ollinger discloses a method of doing so through its impedance controller and specifically specifies a target angle, however, as Gregg is using a hinged machine as well, and is capable of moving from one position to another, so it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a target “angle” to go from one position to another in the system taught by Gregg.
Regarding Claim 5:
The method of claim 4, wherein the reference trajectory angle is based upon limb phase of a user of the wearable robot.
Gregg discloses “Since there is no interaction with the environment during swing phase, a time-based position tracking controller was designed based on able-bodied reference trajectories. Time-based position tracking may provide a stronger pushoff and a smoother transition to swing phase.” (Gregg, [0061]).
Regarding Claim 7:
The method of claim 6, wherein the wearable robot is an exoskeleton.
Gregg discloses “In the last decade, a great amount of research has gone into the design and control of powered prosthetic limbs. Many powered prosthetic devices have emerged from this research, several of which implement non-backdrivable joint actuators, consisting of high-speed, low-torque motors with high-ratio transmissions, such as ball screws or multiple gear stages… As a result, certain exoskeletons in the field of rehabilitation robotics have recently implemented high-torque motors in combination with low-ratio transmissions.” (Gregg, [0028]).
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “this model is used to represent an exoskeleton designed to assist the motion of one of the leg's joints such as the knee joint” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, wherein the exoskeleton is a knee exoskeleton, a hip exoskeleton or an elbow exoskeleton.
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “this model is used to represent an exoskeleton designed to assist the motion of one of the leg's joints such as the knee joint” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 11:
The wearable robot of claim 10, wherein the collocated impedance controller comprises:
an impedance controller configured to generate a reference torque based upon a comparison of the angle of rotation and the reference trajectory angle; and
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “The active impedance element generates a commanded angle velocity {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.c. The commanded angle velocity is possibly combined with its integral and/or derivative to form a commanded kinematic trajectory q.sub.c (comprising angular position, angular velocity and/or angular acceleration) for the exoskeleton… The commanded kinematic trajectory and the interaction torque or force .tau..sub.p is used to control the motor of the exoskeleton, possibly through a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) or other control mechanism.” (Aguirre-Ollinger , [0062]).
a current controller configured to control current supplied to the QDD based upon a comparison of the current of the QDD actuator and a reference current associated with the reference torque.
Gregg discloses “An alternative approach which may be commonly used in control of a powered prosthesis is impedance control. The most common way to perform joint impedance control is using joint torque feedback to produce the desired behavior… Note that τ.sub.m=nk.sub.ti.sub.m, where k.sub.t is the motor's torque constant and i.sub.m is its current, commanded to the driver.” (Gregg, [0059]).
Although Gregg discloses a system for controlling a QDD actuator, Gregg does not disclose a method of moving towards a target angle. Aguirre-Ollinger, however, discloses “The commanded kinematic trajectory and the interaction torque or force .tau..sub.p is used to control the motor of the exoskeleton” ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Gregg with the impedance controller and target angle from Aguirre-Ollinger because within both systems, there would be a target position to move towards. Aguirre-Ollinger discloses a method of doing so through its impedance controller and moving towards a target angle, however, as Gregg is using a hinged machine as well, and is capable of moving from one position to another, so it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a target “angle” to go from one position to another in the system taught by Gregg.
Regarding Claim 12:
The wearable robot of claim 9, wherein the reference trajectory angle is provided by a high-level controller of the wearable robot.
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “The active impedance element generates a commanded angle velocity {dot over (.theta.)}.sub.c.” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0062]).
Although Gregg discloses a system for controlling a QDD actuator, Gregg does not disclose a method of determining a target angle. Aguirre-Ollinger, however, discloses “impedance element generates a commanded angle” ([0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the system of Gregg with the impedance controller and target angle from Aguirre-Ollinger because within both systems, there would be a target position to move towards. Aguirre-Ollinger discloses a method of doing so through its impedance controller and specifically specifies a target angle, however, as Gregg is using a hinged machine as well, and is capable of moving from one position to another, so it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a target “angle” to go from one position to another in the system taught by Gregg.
Regarding Claim 13:
The wearable robot of claim 12, wherein the reference trajectory angle is based upon limb phase of a user of the wearable robot.
Gregg discloses “Since there is no interaction with the environment during swing phase, a time-based position tracking controller was designed based on able-bodied reference trajectories. Time-based position tracking may provide a stronger pushoff and a smoother transition to swing phase.” (Gregg, [0061]).
Regarding Claim 15:
The wearable robot of claim 14, wherein the wearable robot is an exoskeleton.
Gregg discloses “In the last decade, a great amount of research has gone into the design and control of powered prosthetic limbs. Many powered prosthetic devices have emerged from this research, several of which implement non-backdrivable joint actuators, consisting of high-speed, low-torque motors with high-ratio transmissions, such as ball screws or multiple gear stages… As a result, certain exoskeletons in the field of rehabilitation robotics have recently implemented high-torque motors in combination with low-ratio transmissions.” (Gregg, [0028]).
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “this model is used to represent an exoskeleton designed to assist the motion of one of the leg's joints such as the knee joint” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0045]).
Regarding Claim 16:
The wearable robot of claim 15, wherein the exoskeleton is a knee exoskeleton, a hip exoskeleton or an elbow exoskeleton.
Aguirre-Ollinger discloses “this model is used to represent an exoskeleton designed to assist the motion of one of the leg's joints such as the knee joint” (Aguirre-Ollinger, [0045]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES B CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday | 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/J.B.C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights