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 Amendment
Claims 1 and 8 are amended. It is noted that claims 1 and 8 are inadvertently labeled as “Original” and that claim 15 is no longer shown in the claim set, however it should be labeled as “Canceled”. Some of the 35 USC 112 rejections are overcome as set forth below. It is noted the claims are still examined “as best understood” due to the remaining 35 USC 112 issues.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s main argument which appears to be an assertion the “motor encoder” is not disclosed in Richmond and that Richmond does not teach that exact type of encoder. It is noted his limitation is broadly recited in the claims and is widely well known in the art. It is the position of the Office that the encoders described by Richmond work as “motor encoders” as they are supplied in the joints where motors are generally placed along with force sensors and send information directly to the motors. They apparently are also displaced in the same vicinity of the motors per figure 8B of Richmond. Should applicant still disagree that there is some potentially patentable nuance with this limitation, it is further noted again that integrated motor encoders (which are not actually in the instant claims as of yet) are widely well known in the art and are an obvious design choice at best. The Examiner further points to [0131] of Evans (cited below) which shows it is widely well known in the art to provide robot servo motors with individual integrated encoders, should the claims be amended to more precisely recite this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 8 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 and 8, the claims are drawn to an inspection method and system, however the bodies of the claims do not clearly incorporate a clear “inspection” process or recitation into the body of the claim, thus confusing the scope of the claim as to what the actual “inspection” part comprises.
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 depend from rejected claims 1 and 8 and are thus rejected under the same rationale. Accordingly, the claims will be examined “as best understood.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond et al (US 2017/0143429) in view of Evans (US 2003/0055410).
Regarding claim 1, Richmond teaches a machine posture inspection method, comprising:
configuring an image capturing device to capture a current image of a region where a machine device is located (see at least [0005, 0039, etc.]); and
configuring a processing device to:
identify a reference marker and a first marker associated with the machine device in the current image (via tracking markers 206 of figure 2, see at least [0039, 0043, etc.]);
calculate and obtain a current posture of the machine device according to the reference marker and the first marker (at least [0043] teaches obtaining spatial position and pose data of the automated arm);
configure at least one motor encoder to measure an encoder signal associated with at least one motor (see at least [0091] at “Inputs into the motor controller include the joint encoders (885) located in the automated arm as well as any connected (i.e. to the intelligent positioning system) force/torque sensors 875”. It is noted that the Examiner maintains that this limitation is still taught by Richmond under BRI. Examiner also points to [0131] of Evans which shows it is widely well known in the art to provide robot servo motors with their only individual integrated encoders, should the claims be amended to more precisely recite this limitation); and
determine, according to the current posture and the encoder signal, whether or not the machine device is accurate or has an error (see at least [0085-0091] which teaches determining pose error of the joints and end effector and inaccuracies, and compensating for such issues).
However, Richmond does not appear to explicitly disclose the newly added limitation which recites wherein abnormalities of the machine device selectively include robot mechanism abnormalities, motor abnormalities, encoder abnormalities, and marker falling. Evans teaches a surgical robot system wherein various errors based on kinematics of the robot are calculated including at least the broadly recited “robot mechanism abnormalities” (see at least [0165, 0169]). Therefore, from the teaching of Evans, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to provide the robotic system of Richmond with error/abnormality tracking of the various components of the robot similar to that of the teaching of Evans in order to catch position errors of the robotic joints as soon as possible and to provide accurate error compensation for the surgical robot.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Richmond and Evans teaches the step of determining whether or not the machine device is abnormal further includes: calculating and obtaining, according to the current posture, an estimated encoder position of the at least one motor by using inverse kinematics; and comparing the estimated encoder position and the encoder signal of the at least one motor (see at least [0085, 0087, 0091, 0116] which teaches the error estimation is at least partially based inverse kinematics. Pose estimation is determined at least in part by positioning and orientation calculated based on equivalent motor encoders).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Richmond and Evans teaches wherein the step of determining whether or not the machine device is abnormal further includes: calculating and obtaining, according to the encoder signal, an estimated posture by using kinematics; and comparing the estimated posture with the current posture (see the rejection to claim 2 above). However, Richmond does not appear to explicitly disclose the use of forward kinematics instead of inverse kinematics. It is noted that the instant specification refers to forward kinematics as another embodiment in lieu of inverse kinematics which is recited in claim 2. These embodiments have not been restricted in a species restriction as they are functionally equivalent. This limitation is being treated by Examiner as an obvious design choice, as the decision to use either the more complex inverse kinematics solution or the simpler forward kinematics solution to help compute orientation of the joints and effector would have been obvious do one having ordinary skill in the art making a design choice. In this case, forward kinematics are generally easier and simpler to implement and it would have been an obvious design choice to save money by using forward kinematics to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Richmond and Evans teaches configuring the processing device to: calculate and generate a control command for the machine device according to the current posture and a target posture; and control the at least one motor by the control command to drive the machine device to move to the target posture (see at least [0103] and claim 7 which teaches determination of desired orientation and movement).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Richmond and Evans teaches configuring the processing device to: identify a second marker in the current image, wherein the second marker is associated with a target work region (see at least claim 12 which states at least 3 optical tracking markers); calculate and obtain a current position of the mechanical device according to the positions of the reference marker, the first marker and the second marker; calculate and generate the control command for the machine device according to the current posture, the current position, the target posture and a target position; and control the at least one motor by the control command to drive the machine device to move to the target posture and move toward the target position (see at least [0043, 0045, 0058-0066]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Richmond and Evans teaches configuring the processing device to: compare the current posture with a predetermined working range to determine whether or not the machine device is outside of the predetermined working range; and in response to the machine device being outside of the predetermined working range, determine that the machine device is abnormal (see again at least [0085- 0087, 0156]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Richmond and Evans teaches the machine device includes a base platform and a mobile platform with a plurality of degrees of freedom relative to the base platform, the mobile platform is driven by the at least one motor, the first marker is arranged at the base platform of the machine device, and the second marker is arranged at the mobile platform of the machine device (see at least [0043, 0045, 0073] and figure 2 which teaches markers in multiple locations including those claimed).
Regarding claims 8-14, the claims have generally the same scope as rejected claims 1-7 above and are thus rejected under the same rationale. the combination of Richmond and Evans teaches all the limitations as applied.
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 JASON HOLLOWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5786. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Tommy Worden can be reached at 571-272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658