DETAILED ACTION
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 Remarks
Claim Objections
Most of the objections to the claims provided in the previous Office Action dated 08/11/2025 (hereinafter referred to as the Previous Office Action) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Examiner notes that Applicant has indicated that the adjective “updated” is of patentable significance through said amendments. See 3. of the previous Office Action.
The issue identified with respect to “the … force value that accounts for…” remains unresolved, the amendments not being in line with 5. of the previous Office Action as indicated.
Claim Interpretation
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The previous Office Action in 17. provides the appropriate responses “if applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)”. Applicant’s statement that “Applicant does not concede that treatment under 112(f) is appropriate” on Page 13 as numbered by Applicant of Applicant’s Remarks is not an appropriate response if treatment under 112(f) is undesired, being neither (1) nor (2) of the appropriate responses indicated. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is therefore retained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
With respect to the rejection of Claims 2, 10 and 18 regarding the “last component … nearest to the end effector”, in light of Applicant’s statements on the record with reference to Applicant’s specification the rejection has been withdrawn. Instead, as the meaning requires close reference to the specification in a manner which may be considered as different than the normal English reading, a note has been retained in the Claim Interpretations section below to maintain a clear record of the interpretation of the claim limitation.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 4, 12 and 19 regarding the “whenever the inertial measurement unit is not activated”, in light of Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims providing at least one half of a binary contingent clause needed for clarity, the rejections are withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of Claims 4, 12 and 19 regarding the “less conservative damping values”, in light of Applicant’s statements on the record with reference to Applicant’s specification, and upon review of similar other portions of Applicant’s specification, specifically Page 9 Line 21 through Page 10 Line 9, the rejection has been withdrawn. Examiner notes, that “conservative” as disclosed by Applicant appears to be with respect to the effect, whereas before it was unclear if it referred to the effect of the damping or the size of the values themselves. More specifically, it appears that “conservative” within the disclosure refers to at least the expectation of the system being “overdamped” and “less conservative” to the expectation that the system is underdamped.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to provide two main arguments: (1) that Garcia does not disclose all sensor readings as being made directly in the same frame of reference without any additional processing; and (2) that Garcia does not teach adjusting/calculating an adjusted force value at each tick of a real-time control cycle (based on Page 17 of Applicant’s Remarks).
First, Applicant’s arguments rely on a narrower interpretation than the broadest reasonable interpretation of the terms and phrases used in the claims. The claims recite “receiving … an updated force value from the force-torque sensor in a first coordinate space”, “receiving … an updated acceleration value from the inertial measurement unit in the first coordinate space”, and “adjusting the updated force value … in the first coordinate space”. The acts of “receiving” do not provide any limitation requiring a measurement which is directly in a particular frame of reference. The claim at most indicates the frame of reference and at least an intermediate provider. The claims do not any intermediate steps, and do not even require that the sensor or unit in question measure. They could even simply provide information obtained externally.
The term “first coordinate space” is likewise extremely broad. It is not defined or described in any manner whereby it is clear that Garcia does not read on the limitations. See more below.
The term “tick” is an abstract unit having no particular definition unless given one. The claims do not define, describe, or otherwise refer to the tick itself. Furthermore, the claims at present do not even require a plurality of ticks. Therefore, an argument of lack of “ticks” which is what Applicant’s argument appears to be is moot. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments do not appear to demonstrate that Garcia teaches any of these items as occurring at differing ticks.
Second, Applicant’s arguments appear to potentially rely on interpretations narrower even than disclosed. The only distinction between “spaces” given in Applicant’s disclosure appears to be between “task (Cartesian) space”/”Cartesian position space” and “joint space”. Garcia’s disclosure of specific “frames” is in line with these limitations. Applicant does not even appear to disclose more than a single global coordinate frame (See Figure 2) and the distinction between joint and task/cartesian space. It is therefore clear that Applicant’s specification does not even appear to support the interpretation relied upon in Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant does not define or describe “ticks” in any manner, or even a plurality of “ticks” within their disclosure such that any particular interpretation must be taken. If Applicant is relying on common knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for support of limitations argued or a particular interpretation of a limitation, the argued features must likewise be considered in this context and would consequently not appear to be novel.
Third, Applicant does not address portions of Garcia which were recited with respect to limitations now found in the argued independent claims. Original Claim 7 claimed features of real-time control and ticks which were rejected under Garcia. Applicant does not appear to address the cited disclosure of Garcia in any manner.
Fourth, Applicant’s arguments rely on features which appear to be new matter and which are consequently rejected under 35 USC § 112(a). See the rejections below. With respect to the statement of “without additional processing”, what actually appears disclosed is simply that for IMU readings, a conversion from joint space to cartesian/task space is not required. There is no disclosure with respect to other values and measurements being in a given space, and furthermore no discussion of conversion between given frames of a particular space within Applicant’s originally filed Application. The cited portion of Garcia indicated as supporting Applicant’s arguments on Pages 15 and 16 of Applicant’s Remarks appears to be directed towards conversion between frames of a given space rather than conversion between spaces as appears argued by Applicant.
Fifth, and with respect specifically to Claim 1 and the dependent claims thereof, Applicant has amended Claim 1 (and all independent claims) to include the contingent limitation of “whenever an inertial measurement unit mounted on the first moveable component of the robot is activated:” wherein all limitations following are contingent upon this limitation. Per MPEP 2111.04(II), “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments appear entirely moot with respect to Claims 1 – 6, 8, and 21. Relatedly, these claims are likewise newly rejected under 35 USC § 101 due to the significantly reduced required limitations.
For further clarity, see the updated rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the phrase “the inertial measurement unit value”. This limitation should instead read “the inertial measurement unit” (remove “value”).
Examiner furthermore notes that the word “value” is added subject matter that was not underlined in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(ii). While not objected, “the” in the first recitation of “from the inertial measurement unit” was also not underlined as required. MPEP 714 relates. Applicant is reminded to clearly indicate all changes to facilitate clear and compact prosecution.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the phrase “the adjusted updated force value that accounts for the post-sensor inertia of the object at the end effector”. This limitation has insufficient antecedent basis. The previous claim clause recites “adjusting the updated force value received from the force-torque sensor using the updated acceleration value received from the inertial measuring unit value to account for post-sensor inertia of an object at the end effector in the first coordinate space”. The “to …” of the previous clause merely indicates an intended purpose and furthermore is different from “that”. Furthermore, it is not an inherent requirement that the “adjusting” leaves the force value as a force value.
It should instead read “the updated force value adjusted using the updated acceleration value received from the inertial measurement unit to account for post-sensor inertia of an object at the end effector in the first coordinate space” or “the value from adjusting the force value” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
Applicant makes frequent use of the preposition “to”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the word is of indicating a purpose, intention, tendency, or result. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of limitations reciting “to”, depending on claim construction, is inclusive of those which render the limitations as non-positively recited limitations. For example, Claim 1 recites “to measure forces on an end effector of the robot” and “to account for post-sensor inertia of an object at the end effector in the first coordinate space”. Neither of these limitations are positively recited limitations. The “to” merely indicates an intended purpose, result, or similar of the preceding limitations. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will attempt to address these limitations as if they were positively recited limitations where readily apparent in the prior art relied upon in the rejections below.
Furthermore, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that if interpreted as positively recited limitations, the limitations would appear to “merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention” and therefore “the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear”. MPEP 2173.05(g) relates.
The limitation “a last moveable component of the robot nearest to the end effector” found in at least Claims 2, 10, and 18 means “a moveable component of the robot before the end effector”, or “the same moveable component as the end effector” (wherein the end effector and moveable component may be the same component). See Page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 11/25/2025.
The definition of the term inertia is mass in cases of linear (translational) motion and the moment of inertia or mass moment of inertia in cases of rotational motion. Applicant only discloses handling inertia as mass. Rotational motion cases involving inertia defined using units other than mass are not discussed or otherwise disclosed in Applicant’s originally filed application. See for example Equation (3) and the related disclosure “the mass of the post-sensor inertia” (emphasis added) on Page 8 explicitly discloses using mass for the post-sensor inertia. See also “the mass of the post-sensor inertia multiplied by the updated acceleration value”.
Therefore, the term “inertia”, particularly as found in the phrase “post-sensor inertia” has been interpreted as meaning “mass”, and is exclusive of the meaning moment of inertia or similar having unit [kg⋅m2] or similar.
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Interaction control system first recited in Claim 1
Damping configuration (including all such numerically identified) first recited in Claim 4
Storage devices first recited in Claim 9
Data processing apparatus first recited in Claim 17
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 – 6, 8 – 14, and 16 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, the claims recite the limitations “an updated force value from the force-torque sensor in a first coordinate space”, “an updated acceleration value from the inertial measurement unit in the first coordinate space”, and “adjusting the updated force value received from the force-torque sensor … in the first coordinate space”.
Applicant’s disclosure only appears to disclose that a particular value is in a particular “coordinate space” with respect to the acceleration retrieved from the IMU. Applicant’s disclosure appears silent with respect to a particular “coordinate space” (joint or task/Cartesian) for any “updated force value from the force-torque sensor” or “adjusting the updated force value received from the force-torque sensor”. Furthermore, and consequently, there is no disclosure that all three items share a particular space.
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, the claims recite the limitation “receiving … an updated acceleration value from the inertial measurement unit … at each tick” and “controlling … at each tick”. While Applicant discloses generating a command at every tick, adjusting a force value at every tick, and receiving an updated force value from the FT sensor at every tick, Applicant does not disclose that the acceleration value is likewise received at every tick or that the control system is controlled at each tick. See Page 10 Lines 17 – 25 of Applicant’s specification wherein Applicant states “at every tick” with respect to each item except the “updated acceleration value from the IMU”. Furthermore, the statement “These components can function to determine the properties and forces of robotic motion in a workcell environment at every tick of a real-time control cycle including adjusting the force value at each tick” found on Page 5 Lines 7 – 9 is not specific enough to support this limitation.
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, the claims recite the limitation “a dynamic force in the first coordinate space”. This feature is not disclosed. See the related rejection of Claims 1, 9, and 17 above. Only “the updated acceleration value” appears to have support for a particular coordinate space. The “dynamic force” and the “post-sensor inertia …” do not. See also Page 8, Lines 4 – 9:
“Acceleration is provided instead of force because interactions with the workcell environment 112 are not necessarily determined, i.e. they can be unknown. For example, at any time the robot 150 might contact a human or workpiece which can cause unwanted confounding motion from the robot and the coupled robot-workcell system. Since the forces from the motion of the robot itself and unmodeled structural dynamics are relatively unknown, the acceleration is used since it can be combined with the post-sensor inertia into a force”
The above makes it clear that inertia is not measured by the IMU, particularly in the context of “subtracting…”, which is the only item as noted above particular about a given coordinate space.
Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 2 – 6, 8, 10 – 14, 16, and 18 – 20, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 6, 8, 10 – 14, 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
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 – 6, 8 – 14, and 16 – 22 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 Claims 1, 9, and 17, the claims recite the limitation “adjusting the updated force value received from the force-torque sensor” in the overall limitation of “adjusting the updated force value received from the force-torque sensor using the updated acceleration value received from the inertial measurement unit value at each tick of the real-time control cycle”. However, the claims previously recite “an updated force value … at each tick of a real-time control cycle”. In the case where more than one “tick” (which should be the case for effectively any “real-time control cycle”), there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the updated force value” as there is a plurality of update force values (one for each tick) and it is therefore unclear which is referred to. The overall limitation should refer to things in the context of ticks wherein there is clear unity between the tick referred to.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the overall limitation has been interpreted as instead reading “at each tick of the real-time control cycle, adjusting the updated force value received from the force-torque sensor at the respective tick using the updated acceleration value received from the inertial measurement unit at the respective tick,” or similar.
Regarding Claims 2 – 6, 8, 10 – 14, 16, and 18 – 22, the claims depend from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claims 2 – 6, 8, 10 – 14, 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under the same logic presented above.
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 – 6, 8, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, in an interaction control system comprising a robot having a plurality of moveable components and a force-torque sensor mounted on a first moveable component of the one or more movable components to measure forces on an end effector of the robot, an updated force value from the force-torque sensor in a first coordinate space representing a force on the end effector at each tick of a real-time control cycle
…
The remaining limitations are not required as they are contingent and within a method claim. MPEP 2111.04(II) relates.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03 relates.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) relates.
The claim recites a limitation of “receiving”, with no particular limitations provided which render them unable to be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The “receiving” and “from” are claimed at such a high level of generality that they encompass an extremely broad set of possibilities. For example, a person may observe a value, think of a value, calculate a value, etc.
In other words, at present due to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim under the broad contingent limitation, the claim appears to merely recite a step of gathering information and nothing more.
The limitation, as drafted, is a basic process or processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “computer-implemented”, “in an interaction control system” or similar. That is, other than reciting the bolded limitations nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of being performed by a generic computer or components thereof does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites mental processes.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “computer-implemented” and “in an interaction control system”.
These limitations appear to merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer or components thereof. It is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating certain activities.
Furthermore, the limitation of “in an interaction control system” appears to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Examiner notes that mere data gathering and outputting are a judicially recognized insignificant extra-solution activity when performed by generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
101 Analysis – Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05 relates.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim, if any, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the data-processing hardware is anything other than a conventional computer or components thereof.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to the dependent claims of independent Claim 1 (Claims 2 – 6, 8, and 21), the claims merely recite additional details to the non-required limitations of the claims and do not narrow the scope of the claim in any manner under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof due to the contingent limitation or recite structural details which do not meaningfully alter the rejections made above with respect to Claim 1. In the Case of Claim 4, the nature of “operating the robot” is entirely independent of the only other required limitation of “receiving … a … force value” and thus appears again to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, said operation is not altered, influenced, or otherwise related to the “receiving” such that it clearly integrates said receiving into some kind of practical application.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the objections and 35 USC 112 rejections provided herein which generally provide Examiner’s interpretations for the purpose of compact prosecution where possible and appropriate.
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)(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.
Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 14, and 16 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia et al. (García, Javier Gámez, et al. "Sensor fusion for compliant robot motion control." IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24.2 (2008): 430-441.).
Regarding Claim 1, Garcia teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, in an interaction control system (See at least Section IV., Subsection A. “robot control operating system being VxWorks” or “control system”) comprising a robot having a plurality of moveable components (See at least Figures 1 and 3) and a force-torque sensor mounted on a first movable component of the one or more movable components (See at least Figure 3 caption “An ATI wrist force sensor is attached to the robot tip. The inertial sensor is placed between the robot tip and the force sensor”) to measure forces on an end effector of the robot, an updated force value from the force-torque sensor in a first coordinate space representing a force on the end effector (See at least Figures 1 and 2) at each tick of a real-time control cycle (See at least Section IV., Subsection A. “This platform allows the implementation of complex algorithms in Matlab/Simulink where, once they have been designed, are compiled using the real-time toolbox and downloaded to the robot controller. The task created by Simulink communicates with other tasks through shared memory, the robot control operating system being VxWorks [29] … The sample of the control system was 4 ms”, Figure 4 which illustrates sensor outputs, the associated caption text of Figure 4 which includes the statement “The sample frequency is 250 Hz”, wherein 250 Hz is 4 ms, and Section IV, Subsection B “the forward shift operator (h=4 ms)”);
whenever an inertial measurement unit mounted on the first moveable component of the robot is activated:
receiving, by the interaction control system, an updated acceleration value from the inertial measurement unit in the first coordinate space (See at least Figure 3 caption again and Figures 1 and 2) at each tick of the real time control cycle (See again above portion directed towards “at each tick”);
adjusting the updated force value received from the force-torque sensor using the updated acceleration value received from the inertial measurement unit value (See at least Introduction “The main contribution of this paper is a new observer that fuses data from three different sensors—resolvers/encoders mounted at each joint of the robot, a wrist force/torque (F/T) sensor, and an inertial sensor—with the goal of obtaining a suitable contact F/T estimator for robotic manipulators interacting with their environment” and equations and description throughout. The F/T estimator output is an adjusted F/T sensor output, wherein said F/T sensor output and IMU output are taken as inputs. Therefore, wherein the claim is not specific as to the nature of “based on” or “adjusting” this clearly reads on the limitation) at each tick of the real-time control cycle (See again above portion directed towards “at each tick”) to account for post-sensor inertia of an object at the end effector (See at least abstract “The resulting observer helps to overcome some difficulties of uncertain world models and unknown environments since it reduces the high-frequency and low-frequency spectral contents, i.e., the low-frequency component due to inertia of a heavy tool mass and the high-frequency component due to impacts” and location of IMU in Figures 1 and 2) in the first coordinate space (See again at least Figures 1 and 2);
generating, by the interaction control system, an updated command based on the adjusted updated force value that accounts for the post-sensor inertia of the object at the end effector (See at least Section IV. Subsection B. “The impedance control approach [34] was chosen as the control law to verify the properties of the new force observer”); and
controlling, by the interaction control system at each tick of the real-time control cycle, the robot using the updated command (See again above with respect to “ticks” and “generating commands”. As necessary see various plots within the Figures that make it clear that control is performed and within the response of a given “tick”.).
Regarding Claim 2, Garcia teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the post force-torque sensor and the inertial measurement unit are both mounted on a last moveable component of the robot nearest to the end effector (See at least Figure 1 and caption of Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Examiner notes that wherein the limitation relates to the “post-sensor inertia”, which is not presently positively recited, the following limitation is not positively recited and does not need to be addressed by the prior art. Furthermore, and alternatively, Examiner notes that robots are disclosed generally but may operate under an infinite number of circumstances. Applicant’s specification provides no basis for the particular value provided below such that it is critical to the invention and appears to be more than an arbitrary matter of design choice or circumstances.
The method of claim 2, wherein the post-sensor inertia is generated by a payload having a mass greater than 100 kg.
Regarding Claim 4, Garcia teaches:
The method of claim 3, further comprising:
operating the robot with a first damping configuration whenever the inertial measurement unit is not activated (See at least Section I. “To validate the proposed observer, it has been applied to an impedance control loop in a Stäubli 6-DOF industrial robotic manipulator”); and
operating the robot with a second damping configuration that generates less conservative damping values whenever the inertial measurement unit is activated (Both IMU and IMU-less operations are discussed. See at least Figures 4 and 7. See at least that the system is an impedance control loop as cited above, and that the system “eliminates the inertial and gravitational effects measured by the F/T sensor” (Conclusion). Applicant does not claim how the “less conservative damping values” are achieved, or even in particular what they are, and only appears to claim the “configurations” with respect to the effect achieved (see “that”). Per Applicant’s disclosure, “This system 100 can use the adjusted interaction force 101b value to operate the robot 150 with less conservative damping values whenever the IMU 110 is activated” (Page 8, Lines 28 – 31 of the originally filed specification).
Furthermore, and alternatively See Figure 4 which illustrates the different damping between configurations which meets this limitation).
Regarding Claim 5, Garcia teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein adjusting the updated force value using the updated acceleration value further comprises correcting accelerations from motion of the robot itself (See various “acceleration” values all related to a robot. Examiner furthermore notes that “from motion of the robot itself” is particularly broad. The claim does not define what is considered as “from motion of the robot”. The operation discussed is not for a robot which never moves and therefore all accelerations should be “from motion of the robot itself”).
Regarding Claim 6, Garcia teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein adjusting the updated force value using the updated acceleration value further comprises correcting for unmodeled structural dynamics (See at least Abstract “The resulting observer helps to overcome some difficulties of uncertain world models and unknown environments since it reduces the high-frequency and low-frequency spectral contents, i.e., the low-frequency component due to inertia of a heavy tool mass and the high-frequency component due to impacts”).
Regarding Claim 8, Garcia teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the interaction control system is an admittance control system or an impedance control system (See at least Section I. “To validate the proposed observer, it has been applied to an impedance control loop in a Stäubli 6-DOF industrial robotic manipulator”).
Regarding Claim 22, Garcia teaches:
The system of claim 9, wherein adjusting the updated force value using the updated acceleration value comprises:
subtracting, at each tick of the real-time control cycle, a dynamic force in the first coordinate space specified by (Examiner notes that “dynamic force” and “specified by” are especially broad, not indicating a particular force and merely indicating some kind of governing relationship) (i) the updated acceleration value, and (ii) the post-sensor inertia of the object at the end effector from the updated force value (See at least Introduction “fuses data from three different sensors—resolvers/encoders mounted at each joint of the robot, a wrist force/torque (F/T) sensor, and an inertial sensor”, Section III, Subsection D, “The objective of the force observer is to estimate the environmental forces and torques by separating them from the end effector inertial and gravitational forces and moments in the measurement given by the force sensor”, Section IV, Subsection C, “the robot tool acceleration (x¨) measured through the inertial sensor and multiplied by the robot tool mass”, Section V, “using the calibrated measurement of the inertial sensor to subtract the inertial forces from the F/T sensor measurements obtaining a contact F/T estimate” and Conclusion “eliminates the inertial and gravitational effects measured by the F/T sensor”).
Regarding Claims 9 – 20 and 22, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 8 and 21 with respect to application of prior art, except for the recitation of generic computer components which are still taught by the prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 8 and 21 above. The additional or different limitations found within the claims are of “one or more computers”, “instructions”, “operations”, and “a computer storage medium encoded with a computer program” and “data processing apparatus”. See at least Section IV., Subsection A. of Garcia as needed for disclosure which teaches these limitations.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koenke (US 20230049155 A1) which discloses many if not potentially all of the limitations presently claimed. See for example Equations 3 and 14 – 16 and [0056] where detail to the level of Claims 21 – 22 is presented. Koenke in some ways appears more comprehensive, appearing to potentially account for all forms of inertia rather than only linear inertia.
Colbrunn et al. (US 20210229279 A1) which discloses hybrid control of a robot including gravity compensation and mass/inertia compensation.
Examiner notes that Li et al. (Li, Shuhan, and Jinli Xu. "Multi-axis force/torque sensor technologies: design principles and robotic force control applications: A review." IEEE Sensors Journal (2024)), while not qualifying as prior art, is a review of the general topic disclosed and claimed by Applicant, and the majority of the 120 references reviewed and the references of said reviewed references qualify as prior art. Therefore Li et al., rather than a large body of the cited references, has been included.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657