DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/30/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112( have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 newly found prior art necessitated by Applicant's amendments changing the scope of the claims.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samuel et al. (“High-Performance Admittance Control of An Industrial Robot Via Disturbance Observer,” hereinafter Samuel) in view of KASAI et al. (US 20190091861 A1, hereinafter Kasai).
Regarding claim 1, Samuel teaches:
A robot configured to control position and velocity in a work space (at least as in page 1, col. 2, para. 4, wherein a robot with “a robust admittance control architecture based on a DOB in task space which suppresses the effects of velocity disturbances to a high DOF robot” is disclosed), the robot comprising:
a robot manipulator (at least as in page 2, col. 1, para. 3, wherein the “COMAU RACER-7-1.4 6DOF industrial manipulator presented in Fig. 1 is considered in this paper as the target system”);
a force/torque (F/T) sensor coupled to a tool end of the robot manipulator, and configured to measure a force/torque value (at least as in page 2, col. 1, para. 3, wherein “An ME-Meßsysteme KD6110 F/T sensor, which measures the interaction forces, is rigidly fixed to the robot flange”);
a gripper system including a payload, wherein the gripper system is coupled to a bottom end of the F/T sensor (at least as in page 2, col. 1, para. 3, wherein “the gripper (payload) attached to the F/T sensor with the aid of a coupling”); and
a robot controller connected to the F/T sensor and the gripper system (at least as in page 2, col.2, par. 2, wherein the admittance controller receives the force sensor measurement and controls the robot and payload)…
But Samuel does not explicitly teach:
wherein the robot controller is configured to:
acquire a disturbance estimate value by integrating a velocity command value, measured velocity value, an inverse model of velocity control system, and the measured force/torque value,
wherein the disturbance estimate value is expressed in Equation 1 below,
[Equation 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
78
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein D^v(s) is a disturbance estimate value, Q(s) is a “Q” filter, Dn(s) is a nominal model, Vm(s) is a measured velocity value, and Vi(s) is a velocity command value, A(s) is an admittance target value, and Fm(s) is a measured force value, and
control the robot manipulator with the effects of a disturbance suppressed based on the disturbance estimate value.
However, Kasai, in the same field of endeavor of robot arm control system implementing an ideal response to a command value by correcting influence of a disturbance is applied to driving control of the joint section, specifically teaches:
wherein the robot controller (at least as in paragraph 0134, “Referring to FIG. 6, a supporting arm control system 1 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes a supporting arm apparatus 10, a control apparatus 20, and a display apparatus 30”; at least as in paragraph 0166, wherein the control system includes an ideal joint control section which further includes a disturbance estimating section)is configured to:
acquire a disturbance estimate value by integrating a velocity command value, measured velocity value, an inverse model of velocity control system, and the measured force/torque value, (see Fig. 5, wherein the disturbance observer is separate and outside of the basic control loop; at least as in paragraph 0120, “a disturbance observer 620 is applied to calculate a disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d serving as an estimation value of torque caused by a disturbance based on a rotational angle q of the actuator 610 measured by the encoder 613”; at least as in paragraph 0069, “in the actuator 430, it is possible to obtain information such as the rotational angle, the rotational angular velocity, and the rotational angular acceleration of the joint sections 421a to 421f on the basis of the number of revolutions of the driving shaft 429 detected by the encoder 427, and it is possible to detect the generated torque in the joint sections 421a to 421f through the torque sensor 428”)
wherein the disturbance estimate value is expressed in Equation 1 below,
[Equation 1]
PNG
media_image1.png
78
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein D^v(s) is a disturbance estimate value, Q(s) is a “Q” filter, Dn(s) is a nominal model, Vm(s) is a measured velocity value, and Vi(s) is a velocity command value, A(s) is an admittance target value, and Fm(s) is a measured force value, and (at least as in paragraph 0124, “the disturbance observer 620 calculates the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d on the basis of a torque command value τ and the rotational angular velocity calculated from the rotational angle q measured by the encoder 613. Here, the torque command value τ is a torque value to be finally generated by the actuator 610 after influence of the disturbance is corrected”; at least as in paragraph 0125, “the rotational angular velocity calculated by the block 632 on the basis of the rotational angle q measured by the encoder 613 is input to the block 634. The block 634 can obtain the rotational angular acceleration by performing an operation expressed by a transfer function Ls, that is, by differentiating the rotational angular velocity, and calculate an estimation value (a torque estimation value) of torque actually acting on the actuator 610 by multiplying the calculated rotational angular acceleration by the nominal inertia J.sub.n”; at least as in paragraph 0126, “a difference between the torque estimation value and the torque command value τ is obtained, and thus the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d serving as a value of torque by a disturbance is estimated. Specifically, the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d may be a difference between the torque command value τ in the previous control and the torque estimation value in the current control. Since the torque estimation value calculated by the block 634 is based on an actual measurement value, and the torque command value τ calculated by the block 633 is based on the ideal theoretical model of the joint sections 421a to 421f indicated by the block 631, it is possible to estimate influence of a disturbance that is not considered in the theoretical model by obtaining the difference of the two values”; at least as in paragraph 0127, “the disturbance observer 620 is further provided with a low pass filter (LPF) indicated by the block 635 in order to prevent a divergence of a system”; at least as in paragraph 0128, “feedforward control of adding the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d calculated by the disturbance observer 620 to the torque target value τ.sup.ref is performed, and thus the torque command value τ serving as a torque value to be finally generated by the actuator 610 is calculated”)
control the robot manipulator with the effects of a disturbance suppressed based on the disturbance estimate value (at least as in paragraph 0128, “feedforward control of adding the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d calculated by the disturbance observer 620 to the torque target value τ.sup.ref is performed, and thus the torque command value τ serving as a torque value to be finally generated by the actuator 610 is calculated. Then, the actuator 610 is driven on the basis of the torque command value τ. Specifically, the torque command value τ is converted into a corresponding electric current value (an electric current command value), the electric current command value is applied to the motor 611, so that the actuator 610 is driven”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Samuel, to include Kasai's teaching of applying a disturbance estimation value to the joint control, since Kasai teaches wherein the disturbance observer accurately predicts a sensor value even in the case where external force is received thus allowing for high-accuracy driving control for achieving the purpose of motion for driving the robot arm.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination of Samuel and Kasai teaches the robot of claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the velocity command value includes an auxiliary velocity command value (Vc) and the disturbance estimate value (see Kasai above, at least as in paragraph 0126, “the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d may be a difference between the torque command value τ in the previous control and the torque estimation value in the current control”).
Regarding claim 3, the above combination of Samuel and Kasai teaches the robot of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach wherein the auxiliary velocity command value is a force value including a reference internal force value (Fr) and the measured force value, which is converted to a velocity by an admittance controller.
However, Kasai further teaches wherein the auxiliary velocity command value is a force value including a reference internal force value (Fr) and the measured force value, which is converted to a velocity by an admittance controller (at least as in paragraph 0126, “the disturbance estimation value τ.sub.d may be a difference between the torque command value τ in the previous control and the torque estimation value in the current control. Since the torque estimation value calculated by the block 634 is based on an actual measurement value, and the torque command value τ calculated by the block 633 is based on the ideal theoretical model of the joint sections 421a to 421f indicated by the block 631, it is possible to estimate influence of a disturbance that is not considered in the theoretical model by obtaining the difference of the two values”; at least as in paragraph 0125, “The disturbance observer 620 includes a block 634 and a block 635. The block 634 is a computing device that calculates torque to be generated by the actuator 610 on the basis of the rotational angular velocity of the actuator 610. In the present embodiment, specifically, the rotational angular velocity calculated by the block 632 on the basis of the rotational angle q measured by the encoder 613 is input to the block 634. The block 634 can obtain the rotational angular acceleration by performing an operation expressed by a transfer function Ls, that is, by differentiating the rotational angular velocity, and calculate an estimation value (a torque estimation value) of torque actually acting on the actuator 610 by multiplying the calculated rotational angular acceleration by the nominal inertia J.sub.n.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Samuel, to include Kasai's teaching of applying a disturbance estimation value to the joint control, since Kasai teaches wherein the disturbance observer accurately predicts a sensor value even in the case where external force is received thus allowing for high-accuracy driving control for achieving the purpose of motion for driving the robot arm.
Regarding claim 4, the above combination of Samuel and Kasai teaches the robot of claim 2 but does not explicitly teach wherein the nominal model is designed from internal velocity closed loop dynamics and includes a payload suppressing function, and is expressed in Equation 2 below, [Equation 2]
PNG
media_image2.png
100
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Rcn is motor-side nominal dynamics, Rdn is robot nominal dynamics, and Pn is payload nominal dynamics.
However, Kasai further teaches wherein the nominal model is designed from internal velocity closed loop dynamics and includes a payload suppressing function, and is expressed in Equation 2 below, [Equation 2]
PNG
media_image2.png
100
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein Rcn is motor-side nominal dynamics, Rdn is robot nominal dynamics, and Pn is payload nominal dynamics (at least as in paragraph 0110, “as the calculated joint force τ.sub.a is reflected in a theoretical model in motion of the joint sections 421a to 421f, the joint sections 421a to 421f are driven to achieve a desired purpose of motion”; at least as in paragraph 0112, “the ideal joint control according to the present embodiment will be described. Motion of each of the joint sections 421a to 421f is modelized by an equation of motion of a second order delay system”; at least as in paragraph 0113, “Here, I.sub.a indicates an inertia moment (inertia) in a joint section, τ.sub.a indicates generated torque of the joint sections 421a to 421f, τ.sub.e indicates external torque acting on each of the joint sections 421a to 421f, and ν.sub.a indicates a viscous drag coefficient in each of the joint sections 421a to 421f. Equation (12) can also be regarded as a theoretical model representing motion of the actuator 430 in the joint sections 421a to 421f.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Samuel, to include Kasai's teaching of applying a disturbance estimation value to the joint control, since Kasai teaches wherein the disturbance observer accurately predicts a sensor value even in the case where external force is received thus allowing for high-accuracy driving control for achieving the purpose of motion for driving the robot arm.
Regarding claim 5, the above combination of Samuel and Kasai teaches the robot of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach wherein the motor-side nominal dynamics is expressed in Equation 3 below, [Equation 3]
PNG
media_image3.png
42
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
kpn is a proportionality coefficient and kin is an integration coefficient.
However, Kasai further teaches wherein the motor-side nominal dynamics is expressed in Equation 3 below, [Equation 3]
PNG
media_image3.png
42
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
kpn is a proportionality coefficient and kin is an integration coefficient (at least as in paragraph 0116, “Meanwhile, the modelization error of the latter caused by friction, inertia, or the like in the joint sections 421a to 421f occurs due to a phenomenon that it is difficult to modelize, for example, friction or the like in the reduction gear 426 of the joint sections 421a to 421f, and an unignorable modelization error may remain at the time of construction of the theoretical model. Further, there is likely to be an error between a value of an inertia I.sub.a or a viscous drag coefficient ν.sub.e in Equation (12) and an actual value in the joint sections 421a to 421f. The error that is hardly modelized may act as a disturbance in the driving control of the joint sections 421a to 421f. Thus, due to influence of such a disturbance, practically, there are cases in which motion of the joint sections 421a to 421f does not respond as in the theoretical model expressed by Equation (12). Thus, there are cases in which it is difficult to achieve the purpose of motion of the control target even when the actual force τ.sub.a serving as the joint force calculated by the generalized inverse dynamics is applied. In the present embodiment, an active control system is added to each of the joint sections 421a to 421f, and thus the response of the joint sections 421a to 421f is considered to be corrected such that an ideal response according to the theoretical model expressed by Equation (12) is performed. Specifically, in the present embodiment, torque control of a friction compensation type using the torque sensors 428 and 428a of the joint sections 421a to 421f is performed, and in addition, it is possible to perform an ideal response according to an ideal value even on the inertia I.sub.a and the viscous drag coefficient ν.sub.a for the requested generated torque τ.sub.a and the requested external torque τ.sub.e.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Samuel, to include Kasai's teaching of applying a disturbance estimation value to the joint control, since Kasai teaches wherein the disturbance observer accurately predicts a sensor value even in the case where external force is received thus allowing for high-accuracy driving control for achieving the purpose of motion for driving the robot arm.
Regarding claim 6, the above combination of Samuel and Kasai teaches the robot of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach wherein the robot nominal dynamics is expressed in Equation 4, [Equation 4]
PNG
media_image4.png
77
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
44
313
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image6.png
40
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein Mr1 is a joint-side mass, Mr2 is a link-side mass, Br1 is a joint-side damping coefficient, and Br2 is a link-side damping coefficient.
However, Kasai further teaches wherein the robot nominal dynamics is expressed in Equation 4, [Equation 4]
PNG
media_image4.png
77
278
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
44
313
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, and
PNG
media_image6.png
40
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein Mr1 is a joint-side mass, Mr2 is a link-side mass, Br1 is a joint-side damping coefficient, and Br2 is a link-side damping coefficient (at least as in paragraph 0116, “Meanwhile, the modelization error of the latter caused by friction, inertia, or the like in the joint sections 421a to 421f occurs due to a phenomenon that it is difficult to modelize, for example, friction or the like in the reduction gear 426 of the joint sections 421a to 421f, and an unignorable modelization error may remain at the time of construction of the theoretical model. Further, there is likely to be an error between a value of an inertia I.sub.a or a viscous drag coefficient ν.sub.e in Equation (12) and an actual value in the joint sections 421a to 421f. The error that is hardly modelized may act as a disturbance in the driving control of the joint sections 421a to 421f. Thus, due to influence of such a disturbance, practically, there are cases in which motion of the joint sections 421a to 421f does not respond as in the theoretical model expressed by Equation (12). Thus, there are cases in which it is difficult to achieve the purpose of motion of the control target even when the actual force τ.sub.a serving as the joint force calculated by the generalized inverse dynamics is applied. In the present embodiment, an active control system is added to each of the joint sections 421a to 421f, and thus the response of the joint sections 421a to 421f is considered to be corrected such that an ideal response according to the theoretical model expressed by Equation (12) is performed. Specifically, in the present embodiment, torque control of a friction compensation type using the torque sensors 428 and 428a of the joint sections 421a to 421f is performed, and in addition, it is possible to perform an ideal response according to an ideal value even on the inertia I.sub.a and the viscous drag coefficient ν.sub.a for the requested generated torque τ.sub.a and the requested external torque τ.sub.e.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Samuel, to include Kasai's teaching of applying a disturbance estimation value to the joint control, since Kasai teaches wherein the disturbance observer accurately predicts a sensor value even in the case where external force is received thus allowing for high-accuracy driving control for achieving the purpose of motion for driving the robot arm.
Regarding claim 7, the above combination of Samuel and Kasai teaches the robot of claim 4 but does not explicitly teach wherein the payload nominal dynamics is expressed in Equation 5 below, [Equation 5]
PNG
media_image7.png
43
203
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
38
187
media_image8.png
Greyscale
the Mpn is a payload mass and Ma is an admittance mass.
However, Kasai further teaches wherein the payload nominal dynamics is expressed in Equation 5 below, [Equation 5]
PNG
media_image7.png
43
203
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
38
187
media_image8.png
Greyscale
the Mpn is a payload mass and Ma is an admittance mass (at least as in paragraph 0115, “However, practically, there are cases in which an error (a modelization error) between motion of the joint sections 421a to 421f and the theoretical model expressed by Equation (12) occurs due to influence of various disturbances. The modelization error is classified into an error caused by a mass property such as a weight, a center of gravity, or a tensor of inertia of the multi-link structure and an error caused by friction, inertia, or the like in the joint sections 421a to 421f. Of these, the modelization error of the former caused by the mass property can be relatively easily reduced at the time of construction of the theoretical model by applying high-accuracy computer aided design (CAD) data or an identification method”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Samuel, to include Kasai's teaching of applying a disturbance estimation value to the joint control, since Kasai teaches wherein the disturbance observer accurately predicts a sensor value even in the case where external force is received thus allowing for high-accuracy driving control for achieving the purpose of motion for driving the robot arm.
Regarding claim 8, the above combination of Samuel and Kasai teaches the robot of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the admittance target value is expressed in Equation 6 below,
PNG
media_image9.png
99
273
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein Ma is an admittance mass and Ba is an admittance damping coefficient.
However, Kasai further teaches wherein the admittance target value is expressed in Equation 6 below,
PNG
media_image9.png
99
273
media_image9.png
Greyscale
wherein Ma is an admittance mass and Ba is an admittance damping coefficient (at least as in paragraph 0131, “The ideal joint control according to the present embodiment has been described above with reference to FIG. 5 together with the generalized inverse dynamics used in the present embodiment. As described above, in the present embodiment, the whole body cooperative control of calculating driving parameters (for example, the generated torque values of the joint sections 421a to 421f) of the joint sections 421a to 421f for achieving the purpose of motion of the arm section 420 is performed in view of the constraint condition using the generalized inverse dynamics. Further, as described above with reference to FIG. 5, in the present embodiment, as correction in which influence of a disturbance is considered is performed on the generated torque value calculated by the whole body cooperative control using the generalized inverse dynamics, the ideal joint control of implementing the ideal response based on the theoretical model in the driving control of the joint sections 421a to 421f is performed. Thus, in the present embodiment, it is possible to perform high-accuracy driving control for achieving the purpose of motion for driving of the arm section 420”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of Samuel, to include Kasai's teaching of applying a disturbance estimation value to the joint control, since Kasai teaches wherein the disturbance observer accurately predicts a sensor value even in the case where external force is received thus allowing for high-accuracy driving control for achieving the purpose of motion for driving the robot arm.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO ICHIKAWA VISCARRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-12 & 2-4 PST.
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.
/RICARDO I VISCARRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights