DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined in this application. This Non-final communication is the first action on the merits.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 1, there is an input labeled “D” which seems to feed directly into the manipulator. This input “D” is not defined in the specification, in claims, or in the remaining drawings. This uncertainty renders Figure 1 unclear and makes it difficult to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 1, there is an input labeled “ Fext “ which seems to feed directly into the disturbance observer (WFADOB) and also into the function “MoM-1d -I “. However there is a break in the line connecting where the term “ Fext “ appears in the drawing and therefore it is unclear whether“ Fext “ goes to both (WFADOB) and the function “MoM-1d -I “ or if “ Fext “ goes to (WFADOB) only or if “ Fext “ goes to the function “MoM-1d -I “ only. This uncertainty renders Figure 1 unclear and makes it difficult to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
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.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant claims a “disturbance observer”. The claims then proceed to describe the disturbance estimate that will be acquired by the “disturbance observer”, but do not provide sufficient description as to the structure of the claimed device.
Regarding claims 2-8, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence on a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims "A work space force/acceleration disturbance observer connected to an impedance-based motion controller in a work space, and configured to acquire a disturbance estimate value..." however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed "disturbance observer" encompasses. Specifically, it is unclear, based on said currently provided claim language, how the claimed "disturbance observer" actually "acquires a disturbance value" and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 2-8, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence on a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 2, Applicant claims "The work space force/acceleration disturbance observer of claim 1, wherein the control input force is expressed in Equation 2 below..." however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear how the claimed "disturbance observer" in claim 2 differentiates from the claimed "disturbance observer" as provided in claim 1. Specifically, as currently claimed, the "disturbance observer" provided in claim 2 is identical to the "disturbance observer" in claim 1, and therefore claim 2 is rejected under this section for failing to further limit the "disturbance observer" provided in the independent claim. Examiner additionally notes Applicant's claim language, specifically regarding "wherein the control input force is expressed in Equation 2 below...", which based on the phraseology of "is expressed in Equation 2" appears to further define a variable of an equation relating to the independent claim and not specifically further limit the claimed "disturbance observer" itself, and as such, claim 2 is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant claims "The work space force/acceleration disturbance observer of claim 2, wherein a final control input force F.sub.c transmitted to a robot manipulator is expressed in Equation 3 below..." however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear how the claimed "disturbance observer" in claim 3 differentiates from the claimed "disturbance observer" as provided in claim 2 (and further as in independent claim 1). Specifically, as currently claimed, the "disturbance observer" provided in claim 3 is identical to the "disturbance observer" in claim(s) 1 & 2, and therefore claim 3 is rejected under this section for failing to further limit the "disturbance observer" provided in the independent claim. Examiner additionally notes Applicant's claim language, specifically regarding "wherein a final control input force F.sub.c transmitted to a robot manipulator is expressed in Equation 3 below...", which based on the phraseology of "is expressed in Equation 3" appears to further define a variable of an equation relating to the independent claim and not specifically further limit the claimed "disturbance observer" itself, and as such, claim 3 is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant claims "wherein a final control input force Fc transmitted to a robot manipulator is expressed in Equation 3 below..." however, based on the currently provided claim language and/or claimed equations, it appears that the claimed "final control input force Fc “ was not previously provided in any of the preceding claims, and therefore, it is unclear how said claimed "final control input force Fc “ is related to and/or correlates to any of the previous claims, and therefore claim 3 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant claims "closed loop dynamics" however, based on the currently provided claim language and/or claimed equations, it appears that the claimed "closed loop dynamics “ was not previously provided in any of the preceding claims, and therefore, it is unclear how said claimed "closed loop dynamics “ is related to and/or correlates to any of the previous claims, and therefore claim 3 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 7-8, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon dependent claim 6 which was rejected under 112(b) above, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependence on claim 6. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant claims "A work space force/acceleration disturbance observer connected to an impedance-based motion controller in a work space, and configured to acquire a disturbance estimate value..." however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed "disturbance observer" encompasses. Specifically, it is unclear, based on said currently provided claim language, how the claimed "disturbance observer" actually "acquires a disturbance value" and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
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.
The claims are directed to a system or method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
The examiner has identified Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to Claim 9. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A work space force/acceleration disturbance observer connected to an impedance- based motion controller in a work space, and configured to acquire a disturbance estimate value in consideration of an interactive force and an acceleration applied to an end effector of a robot, wherein the disturbance estimate value is expressed in Equation 1 below,
[Equation 1]
D = Q(-F’c + Mox + Fext)
wherein D is the disturbance estimate value, “Q” is a ““Q” filter, F’c is a control input force, Mo is a mass matrix estimate value, X is the acceleration, and Fext is the interactive force.
which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a mental process (concept performed in the human mind) to interpret a human action, receive sensor data and detect whether the human action is intended or unintended . One of ordinary skill in the art could acquire a disturbance estimate value which is based on a formula, while also “considering” an interactive force and acceleration which was applied to the end effector of a robot.
Similarly, if a claim limitation under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. (Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63; “Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F. 3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702. (Fed. Cir. 2015.))
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
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”):
A work space force/acceleration disturbance observer connected to an impedance- based motion controller in a work space, and configured to acquire a disturbance estimate value in consideration of an interactive force and an acceleration applied to an end effector of a robot, wherein the disturbance estimate value is expressed in Equation 1 below,
[Equation 1]
D = Q(-F’c + Mox + Fext)
wherein D is the disturbance estimate value, “Q” is a ““Q” filter, F’c is a control input force, Mo is a mass matrix estimate value, X is the acceleration, and Fext is the interactive force.
The work space force/acceleration disturbance observer and impedance- based motion controller in Claim 1 are just using generic computer components. The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on or with the use of generic computer components, cannot provide an inventive concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
The dependent claims further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Shimamoto (US 20230006590 A1)
Claim 1:
Shimamoto teaches the following limitations:
A work space force/acceleration disturbance observer connected to an impedance- based motion controller in a work space, and configured to (Shimamoto - [0029] The first estimation unit 113 estimates the first external force acting on the motor 2 (the first force or the second force) based, at least in part, on the driving force command in the control unit 112 (the first driving force command or the second driving force command). For example, the first estimation unit 113 may output a power matching the driving force command as the estimation result of the first external force. If the drive current matches the current command, the drive current and the driving force command are correlated…. ; [See also Fig. 1]) acquire a disturbance estimate value in consideration of an interactive force and an acceleration applied to an end effector of a robot, wherein the disturbance estimate value is expressed in Equation 1 below, (Shimamoto - [0030] The first estimation unit 113 may be a disturbance observer configured to estimate the first external force based, at least in part, on the driving force command and a response value of the motor 2. For example, the first estimation unit 113 may further be configured to: estimate a first disturbance acting on the motor 2 as the first force based, at least in part, on the first driving force command and a motion of the motor 2 responding to the first driving force command; … ; [0099] The tool holder 16 is connected to the distal end of the arm 15 so as to turn around an axis 36 along the center of the arm 15. The tool holder 16 holds various tools 17 such as a hand for gripping the workpiece, a welding torch, a paint gun, or a screwing tool.. ; [see also fig. 11]) [Equation 1] D = Q(-F’c + MoX.. + Fext) wherein D is the disturbance estimate value, (Shimamoto - [0030] The first estimation unit 113 may be a disturbance observer configured to estimate the first external force based, at least in part, on the driving force command …) “Q” is a ““Q” filter, (Shimamoto - [0053] - … In this case, the first estimation unit 113 may change an estimation condition for the first estimation value (for example, a filter condition for the driving force command) between the estimation of the first external force for calculating the feed-forward compensation value and the estimation of the first external force for estimating the second external force.)F’c is a control input force, (Shimamoto – [0030] … estimate a second disturbance acting on the motor 2 as the second force based, at least in part, on the second driving force command and a motion of the motor 2 responding to the second driving force command. …) Mo is a mass matrix estimate value, X.. is the acceleration, and (Shimamoto – [0030] … For example, the first estimation unit 113 may estimate an inertia force acting on the motor 2 from the driven object 4 based on the response value (for example, current speed and current position) of the motor 2 …) Fext is the interactive force. (Shimamoto – [0021] - … As described in the examples later, the control device 100 may control the motor 2 based on the estimated external force, may detect contact between the driven object 4 and the surrounding object based on the estimated external force, or may estimate the state of the surrounding object based on the estimated external force.)
Examiner Note:
Control Unit 112 corresponds to Impedance-based motion controller
First Estimation Unit 113 corresponds to work space force/acceleration disturbance observer
Inertia force corresponds to “MoX..” in Equation 1
Claim 2 :
Shimamoto teaches the following limitations:
The work space force/acceleration disturbance observer of claim 1, wherein the control input force is expressed in Equation 2 below, [Equation 2] F’c = Fp - Fcforce – D wherein Fc is an impedance-based motion control input by the impedance-based motion controller, and is an external force.
(Shimamoto – [0030] … estimate a second disturbance acting on the motor 2 as the second force based, at least in part, on the second driving force command and a motion of the motor 2 responding to the second driving force command. …)
Claim 9:
Shimamoto teaches the following limitations:
A robot for performing an impedance-based motion control in a work space, the robot comprising: (Shimamoto - [0029] The first estimation unit 113 estimates the first external force acting on the motor 2 (the first force or the second force) based, at least in part, on the driving force command in the control unit 112 (the first driving force command or the second driving force command). For example, the first estimation unit 113 may output a power matching the driving force command as the estimation result of the first external force. If the drive current matches the current command, the drive current and the driving force command are correlated…. ; [See also Fig. 1]) a robot manipulator; and (Shimamoto - [0099] The tool holder 16 is connected to the distal end of the arm 15 so as to turn around an axis 36 along the center of the arm 15. The tool holder 16 holds various tools 17 such as a hand for gripping the workpiece, a welding torch, a paint gun, or a screwing tool.. ; [see also fig. 11]) a robot controller connected to the robot manipulator, (Shimamoto - [0101] In the control system 1, the tool holder 16 and the tool 17 are driven objects of the motor 26. The arm 15, the tool holder 16, and the tool 17 are driven objects of the motor 25. The distal end of the arm 14, the arm 15, the tool holder 16 and the tool 17 are driven objects of the motor 24. … ; [see also fig. 11]) wherein the robot controller includes an impedance-based motion controller, and a work space force/acceleration disturbance observer connected to the impedance-based motion controller, (Shimamoto - [0029] The first estimation unit 113 estimates the first external force acting on the motor 2 (the first force or the second force) based, at least in part, on the driving force command in the control unit 112 (the first driving force command or the second driving force command). For example, the first estimation unit 113 may output a power matching the driving force command as the estimation result of the first external force. If the drive current matches the current command, the drive current and the driving force command are correlated…. ; [See also Fig. 1]) wherein the work space force/acceleration disturbance observer acquires a disturbance estimate value in consideration of an interactive force and acceleration applied to an end effector of the robot, and wherein the disturbance estimate value is expressed in Equation 9 below, (Shimamoto - [0030] The first estimation unit 113 may be a disturbance observer configured to estimate the first external force based, at least in part, on the driving force command and a response value of the motor 2. For example, the first estimation unit 113 may further be configured to: estimate a first disturbance acting on the motor 2 as the first force based, at least in part, on the first driving force command and a motion of the motor 2 responding to the first driving force command; … ; [0099] The tool holder 16 is connected to the distal end of the arm 15 so as to turn around an axis 36 along the center of the arm 15. The tool holder 16 holds various tools 17 such as a hand for gripping the workpiece, a welding torch, a paint gun, or a screwing tool.. ; [see also fig. 11]) [Equation 9]
D = Q(-F’c + Mox + Fext) wherein D is the disturbance estimate value, (Shimamoto - [0030] The first estimation unit 113 may be a disturbance observer configured to estimate the first external force based, at least in part, on the driving force command …) “Q” is a ““Q” filter, (Shimamoto - [0053] - … In this case, the first estimation unit 113 may change an estimation condition for the first estimation value (for example, a filter condition for the driving force command) between the estimation of the first external force for calculating the feed-forward compensation value and the estimation of the first external force for estimating the second external force.)F’c is a control input force, (Shimamoto – [0030] … estimate a second disturbance acting on the motor 2 as the second force based, at least in part, on the second driving force command and a motion of the motor 2 responding to the second driving force command. …) Mo is a mass matrix estimate value, X.. is the acceleration, and (Shimamoto – [0030] … For example, the first estimation unit 113 may estimate an inertia force acting on the motor 2 from the driven object 4 based on the response value (for example, current speed and current position) of the motor 2 …) Fext is the interactive force. (Shimamoto – [0021] - … As described in the examples later, the control device 100 may control the motor 2 based on the estimated external force, may detect contact between the driven object 4 and the surrounding object based on the estimated external force, or may estimate the state of the surrounding object based on the estimated external force.)
Examiner Note:
Control Unit 112 corresponds to Impedance-based motion controller
First Estimation Unit 113 corresponds to work space force/acceleration disturbance observer
Inertia force corresponds to “MoX..” in Equation 1
Examiner Note:
Regarding claim(s) 3 – 8, Examiner notes wherein due to the lack of clarity as reflected in the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections provided above, Examiner is unable to ascertain any reasonable interpretation of these claims in which one skilled in the art would reasonably be able to apply prior art to these claims as currently provided, and therefore these claims are not being addressed by any prior art references with this Non-Final Rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
The following is a brief description for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied:
Matsuoka (US 20220016770 A1) describes a work determination apparatus capable of preventing or reducing a time lag between the occurrence and determination of an anomaly in work. The apparatus includes a disturbance estimation unit which considers forces on all three axes and also considers such factors as gravitational force, Coriolis force and centrifugal force.
Hasegawa (US 20090312867 A1) describes a system of moving a humanoid robot through a gait function. A restrictive condition related to robot leg motion is satisfied at each step up to the predetermined number of steps. If the requirement is satisfied, then a desired gait is generated on the basis of the provisional desired motion trajectory. Otherwise, a desired gait is generated on the basis of a desired motion trajectory of the object according to a corrected moving plan. The apparatus includes an estimated disturbance force determiner.
Park (KR 20240120033 A) describes a method which controls a robot to perform multiple tasks through work space control. The robot control device can efficiently perform the bias acceleration calculation included in workspace control, significantly reducing the time required for the calculation. To this end unnecessary terms that cancel out within the formula of the conventional bias acceleration calculation equation are removed. Preferably, the robot control device may use a bias acceleration calculation equation in which terms related to Coriolis/centrifugal force and gravity are removed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW whose telephone number is (703)756-1854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 5.
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.
/ALAN LINDSAY OSTROW/
Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657