DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 24 January 2024. Claims 1-12 are pending. Claim 1 is an independent claim.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations of claim 1 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “a controller” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 states: “particularly preferred values”. It is not clear what are the metes and bounds of particularly preferred values. Even though the claim provides a new range (0-0.5), it is not clear what factors determine that such a range is preferred over the originally stated interval [0,1]. For prior art purposes, Examiner interprets the foregoing to mean an interval [0,1].
Claim 10 refers to “the energy Est stored in the energy monitoring apparatus”. However, there is no antecedent basis for this term. Moreover, neither claim 10 nor parent claim 1 describe storing the energy. Accordingly, it is not clear what the storage of energy is referring to. For prior art purposes, Examiner interprets the foregoing to mean reduction the value of the predefined portion until a specific value.
Claim 1 recites “controller configured to”. This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification mentions passivity controller. However, passivity controllers maybe implemented via hardware or software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record teaches communicating forces between two actuators and a force feedback system wherein the controller transmits a predefined portion of the energy back to the first actuator. However, prior art of record does not explicitly teach determining power according to claim 4; determining the direction of power according to claim 5; the energy flow monitoring of claim 6; the current output power of the controller according to claim 7; the portion of the maximum permitted exiting power according to claim 8; and the damping of the first actuator according to claim 9. Therefore, it is concluded that the claimed subject matter of claims 5-9, when considered as a whole, is allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US 2012/0328395 A1) hereinafter known as Jacobsen.
Regarding independent claim 1, Jacobsen teaches:
An actuator system, in particular for teleactuation, comprising (Jacobsen: Fig. 1 and ¶[0106] and ¶[0126]; Jacobsen teaches a teleoperated robotic system with actuators.)
a first actuator, in particular for operation by a user, (Jacobsen: Figs. 1-2B and ¶[0106] and ¶[0126]; Jacobsen teaches the user manipulating the master control arms.)
a second actuator, in particular for executing a movement of the user, , (Jacobsen: Figs. 1-2B and ¶[0106] and ¶[0126]; Jacobsen teaches the user manipulating the master control arms to control the movement of the slave arms.)
a transmission channel between the first actuator and the second actuator for transmitting the velocity and/or force of the first actuator to the second actuator and vice versa, and , (Jacobsen: Fig. 10A and ¶[0123]-¶[0140], ¶[0143]-¶[0150], and ¶[0230]-¶[0234]; Jacobsen teaches communication between the master control arms and slave arms, which includes transmitting a desired level force.)
...
...
...
An embodiment of Jacobsen does not explicitly teach but another embodiment of Jacobsen teaches:
a controller, wherein the controller is configured such that the energy of the first actuator introduced in the direction of the transmission channel and the energy of the second actuator introduced in the direction of the transmission channel can be measured by the controller as target energy, (Jacobsen: Fig. 10A and ¶[0143]-¶[0156]; Jacobsen teaches a controller that is in communication with the actuator which adjusts the position and torque at a selected joint on the master control arm based on the position and torque of the corresponding joint on the slave arm, and thus, providing force feedback by transmitting the desired level of force.)
wherein the controller is configured to transmit a predefined portion (u) of the target energy back to the first actuator as part of a reference energy, and (Jacobsen: Fig. 10A and ¶[0143]-¶[0156] and ¶[0195]; Jacobsen teaches a controller that is in communication with the actuator which adjusts the position and torque at a selected joint on the master control arm based on the position and torque of the corresponding joint on the slave arm, and thus, providing force feedback by transmitting the desired level of force.)
the controller is configured to control the damping of the first actuator and/or the second actuator as a function of the transmitted reference energy. (Jacobsen: ¶[0127] and ¶[0195]; Jacobsen teaches measuring a load in the slave arm and proportionally reproducing by the actuators in the master control arm.)
Jacobsen is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to teleoperations. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a teleoperated robot that contains a first and a second actuators, that are communicating force to each other, to further transmit a predefined portion of the energy back to the first actuator. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow a safety feature of the robotic system, as suggested by Jacobsen: ¶[0127].
Regarding claim 2, Jacobsen further teaches the actuator system according to claim 1.
Jacobsen further teaches:
wherein the predefined portion (u) can assume values from the interval [0, 1], particularly preferred values from the interval (0, 0.5]. (Jacobsen: ¶[0127]; Jacobsen teaches a proportional reflected force of 10 lbs from 500 lbs, which 0.02 of the 500lbs force.)
Regarding claim 3, Jacobsen further teaches the actuator system according to claim 1.
Jacobsen further teaches:
wherein the value of the predefined portion (μ) can be varied during the transmission of the target energy. (Jacobsen: ¶[0127]-¶[0129]; Jacobsen teaches a force feedback system that can manipulate the load.)
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of Tsusaka (US 2014/0195052 A1) hereinafter known as Tsusaka.
Regarding claim 10, Jacobsen further teaches the actuator system according to claim 1.
Jacobsen does not explicitly teach but Tsusaka teaches:
wherein the value of the predefined portion (μ) is reduced during the transmission of the target energy until the energy Est* stored in the energy monitoring apparatus or a deviation of a position of the first actuator and of a position of the second actuator has reached a predefined limit value. (See Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Tsusaka: Fig. 9F and ¶[0338] and ¶[0342]; Tsusaka teaches determining a force spike and momentarily pausing the force feedback to the master unit.)
Jacobsen and Tsusaka are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to teleoperating robots. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a teleoperated robot that contains a first and a second actuators, that are communicating force to back and forth to each other as taught by Jacobsen with further reducing the transmission of a force feedback until the passing of a force spike as taught in Tsusaka. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jacobsen to include teachings of Tsusaka, because it would allow to weaken the force to make it possible to feed back the force to the worker such that the worker more easily feels the force, as suggested by Tsusaka: ¶[0342].
Regarding claim 11, Jacobsen further teaches the actuator system according to claim 1.
Jacobsen does not explicitly teach but Tsusaka teaches:
wherein the predefined portion (μ) is transmitted back to the first actuator before transmission via the communication channel. (Tsusaka: Fig. 19 and ¶[0335]-¶[0337], ¶[0338] and ¶[0343]; Tsusaka teaches calculating the inertia force of the master mechanism based on the acceleration and weight of the master mechanism; and thus, determining the velocity of the master. Accordingly, a portion of the force is determined prior to the communication from the slave unit.)
Jacobsen and Tsusaka are in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as the references are directed to teleoperating robots. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a teleoperated robot that contains a first and a second actuators, that are communicating force to back and forth to each other as taught by Jacobsen with further determining a portion of the force prior to the communication from the slave unit as taught in Tsusaka. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jacobsen to include teachings of Tsusaka, because it would allow taking into account the inertia of the master device, as suggested by Tsusaka: ¶[0337].
Regarding claim 12, Jacobsen in view of Tsusaka further teaches the actuator system according to claim 11.
Tsusaka further teaches:
wherein the value of the predefined portion (μ) is constant during the transmission of the target energy. (Tsusaka: Fig. 19 and ¶[0335]-¶[0337], ¶[0338] and ¶[0343]; Tsusaka teaches calculating the inertia force of the master mechanism based on the acceleration and weight of the master mechanism; and thus, determining the velocity of the master. Tsusaka teaches obtaining a value of the inertia force, which will then be added to the force information from the slave unit. The inertia force is mass multiplied by acceleration. Since the acceleration can be constant, the force is interpreted as a constant value.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118