DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4-5, “wherein wherein the disturbance estimate value” should be “wherein the disturbance estimate value”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 1-9 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.
The terms “task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer” and “implemented on an outside of a position and velocity control loop in the task space” (Claim 1 and 9) is not recognized by the Examiner, even in light of a search of the prior art, as having an ordinary and customary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art. For brevity, Examiner will address the terms of Claim 1 which appear equivalent to those of Claim 17. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not provide a clear meaning of the terms. Therefore, the claim terms are indefinite. (MPEP 2111.01 relates).
More specifically, Applicant’s specification provides only a few details with respect to the term “task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer”. Applicant indicates that the “observer is well known as an established method for suppressing the effects of a disturbance.” Although the use of a disturbance observer is a known method in robotic control theory, the claim is not drafted in method form (at least as in paragraph 0026 of the Specification). Applicant provides an example showing that a disturbance observer is part of a admittance control system in Fig. 1. The example states that the observer is “implemented on an outside of a position and velocity control loop” and “acquires a disturbance estimate value,” however, no other structural limitation or example is provided regarding the observer. Fig. 2 shows that the robot includes a manipulator, sensors, end effector and a controller however no other details of the structure regarding the observer is provided. Applicant’s specification provides no structural elements configured to fulfill the features of the claims.
Additionally, Applicant’s only structural limitation of the observer being “implemented on an outside of a position and velocity control loop in the task space” further fails to provide an explanation as the specification lacks details on how the control loop is implemented. The specification does not describe any details regarding how the observer nor the control loop is implemented by hardware or software.
Therefore, claims 1 and 9 are indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention is unclear. Accordingly, claims 2-8 are rejected for in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer (i.e. a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 is directed toward a robot (i.e. a machine), therefore, the claim is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
9. A robot configured to control position and velocity in a work space, the robot comprising:
a robot manipulator;
an F/T sensor coupled to a tool end of the robot manipulator; and
a robot controller connected to the F/T sensor and including a task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer,
wherein the task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer is implemented on an outside of a position and velocity control loop in the task space, and acquires a disturbance estimate value by integrating a velocity command value, measured velocity value, an inverse model of velocity control system, and a measured force/torque sensor (F/T sensor) value,
wherein the disturbance estimate value is expressed in Equation 7 below,
[Equation 7]
PNG
media_image1.png
78
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein {circumflex over (D)}.sub.v(s) is the disturbance estimate value, Q(s) is a “Q” filter, D.sub.n(s) is a nominal model, V.sub.m(s) is a measured velocity value, and V.sub.i(s) is a velocity command value, A(s) is an admittance target value, and F.sub.m(s) is a measured force value.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mathematical concept” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim recites limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. Acquiring a disturbance estimate value is simple organizing and manipulation of existing information into a new for through mathematical correlations. Data or information is merely translated or transformed from one set of values (i.e. a velocity command value, measured velocity value, an inverse model of velocity control system, and a measured force/torque sensor (F/T sensor) value) into another value (i.e. a disturbance estimate value). Additionally, the claim merely recites a mathematical calculation under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as it recites Equation 7 to simply calculate a disturbance estimate value. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
9. A robot configured to control position and velocity in a work space, the robot comprising:
a robot manipulator;
an F/T sensor coupled to a tool end of the robot manipulator; and
a robot controller connected to the F/T sensor and including a task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer,
wherein the task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer is implemented on an outside of a position and velocity control loop in the task space, and acquires a disturbance estimate value by integrating a velocity command value, measured velocity value, an inverse model of velocity control system, and a measured force/torque sensor (F/T sensor) value,
wherein the disturbance estimate value is expressed in Equation 7 below,
[Equation 7]
PNG
media_image1.png
78
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein {circumflex over (D)}.sub.v(s) is the disturbance estimate value, Q(s) is a “Q” filter, D.sub.n(s) is a nominal model, V.sub.m(s) is a measured velocity value, and V.sub.i(s) is a velocity command value, A(s) is an admittance target value, and F.sub.m(s) is a measured force value.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a robot manipulator… an F/T sensor… a robot controller,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (the robot including a manipulator, sensor, and controller). In particular, the “controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise abstract idea in a generic or general purpose robotic work tool environment. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (a manipulator, sensor, and controller). The controller is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the acquiring step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a robot manipulator… an F/T sensor… a robot controller” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “a robot manipulator… an F/T sensor… a robot controller” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are move than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a robot manipulator… an F/T sensor… a robot controller,” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification recites generally that the robot and controller may be implemented by using executable computer program instructions executed by a general-purpose or special-purpose processor and stored in any commonly known technology for computer-readable memories. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible. Additionally, independent claim 9 reciting the same or similar elements as above is not patent eligible as for the same reasons described above.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-8 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (since the limitations of claims 2-8 simply address the “acquire…” limitations of claim 1 or add an additional determine limitation, which constitute a an abstract idea as explained above), insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (since the limitations of claims 3-5 and 10-16 are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract ideas), and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (since the limitations of claims 2-8 merely recite a disturbance observer and a controller which amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as explained above, are insignificant extra-solution activities, and are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities). Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 9.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-9 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KASAI et al. (US 20190091861 A1, hereinafter Kasai).
Regarding claim 1, Kasai teaches:
A task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer implemented on an outside of a position and velocity control loop in a task space, and configured to acquire a disturbance estimate value by integrating a velocity command value, measured velocity value, an inverse model of velocity control system, and a measured force/torque sensor (F/T sensor) value, wherein (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 {circumflex over (D)}.sub.v(s) is the disturbance estimate value, Q(s) is a “Q” filter, D.sub.n(s) is a nominal model, V.sub.m(s) is a measured velocity value, and V.sub.i(s) is a velocity command value, A(s) is an admittance target value, and F.sub.m(s) is a measured force value (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”).
Regarding claim 2, Kasai further teaches:
The task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer of claim 1, wherein the velocity command value includes an auxiliary velocity command value (Vc) and the disturbance estimate value (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, Kasai further teaches:
The task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer of claim 2, 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.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kasai further teaches:
The task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer of claim 1, 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.”).
5. The task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer of claim 4, 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.”).
Regarding claim 6, Kasai further teaches:
The task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer of claim 4, 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.”).
Regarding claim 7, Kasai further teaches:
The task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer of claim 4, 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”).
Regarding claim 8, Kasai further teaches:
The task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer of claim 1, 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”).
Regarding claim 9, Kasai teaches:
A robot configured to control position and velocity in a work space (Fig. 1, supporting arm apparatus 510), the robot comprising:
a robot manipulator (at least as in paragraph 0032, “The supporting arm apparatus 510 includes a base section 511 serving as a base and an arm section 512 extending from the base section 511”);
an F/T sensor coupled to a tool end of the robot manipulator (at least as in paragraph 0063, “Referring to FIG. 3, an actuator 430 of the joint sections 421a to 421f according to the present embodiment includes a motor 424, a motor driver 425, a reduction gear 426, an encoder 427, a torque sensor 428, and a driving shaft 429”); and
a robot controller connected to the F/T sensor and including a task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer (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),
wherein the task space outer-loop integrated disturbance observer implemented on an outside of a position and velocity control loop in a task space, and acquires a disturbance estimate value by integrating a velocity command value, measured velocity value, an inverse model of velocity control system, and a measured force/torque sensor (F/T sensor) 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 7 below,
[Equation 7]
PNG
media_image1.png
78
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein {circumflex over (D)}.sub.v(s) is the disturbance estimate value, Q(s) is a “Q” filter, D.sub.n(s) is a nominal model, V.sub.m(s) is a measured velocity value, and V.sub.i(s) is a velocity command value, A(s) is an admittance target value, and F.sub.m(s) is a measured force value (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”).
Conclusion
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