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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bellicoso (US 12168300) in view of Shein (US Pub 2011/0190933).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 1, Bellicoso discloses a controller for a robot (computing system, motion control module of robot; abstract; col. 1, lines 25 to col. 2, line 39; figs. 3-11), the robot including a plurality of joints (col. 1, lines 47-64; lines 65; col. 2, lines 19-64), the controller programmed to execute a plurality of instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device perform a method comprising:
determining, by the computing device, motor control information for a plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints (transforming torques into a set of actuator or motor commands to move the each of one or more joints; col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12), the motor control information being based, at least in part, on a robot trajectory to perform a desired behavior [col. 11, lines 55 to col. 12, lines 2; col. 12 , lines 26-60) and power limit information [col. 14, lines 36-67; citing, “checks ………, whether certain metrics of the robot (such as joint limits, power output, or other metrics) have been violated….”] associated with a power system (1112; col. 20, lines 6-34) of the robot (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-52) the motor control information including joint torque information for the plurality of joints to perform the desired behavior (col. 3, lines 31-38; col. 4, lines 62 to col. 5, lines 3); and
controlling the plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints of the robot based, at least in part, on the motor control information to perform the desired behavior (col. 3, 13-38; col. 4, lines 62 to col. 5, lines 3; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Bellicoso checks certain metrics of the robot so that motor control information is based on power limit information, wherein the power limit information includes checks to make sure that power output for the power system is not violated. As such claimed “power limit information” is tantamount to Bellicoso recited checking for power output not being violated of the power system.
Assuming that Bellicoso did not recite, the motor control information being based on power limit information, as argued by applicant, the examiner introduces Shein.
Shein teaches of a controller (140, fig. 15-17; abstract; sec 0010, 0070, 0073) for a robot, the robot including a plurality of joints, the controller programmed to execute a plurality of instructions (sec 0010-0013, 0028, 0073, 0074) that, when executed by a processor of a computing device perform a method comprising:
determining, by the computing device, motor control information for a plurality of motors (36, 46, 55, 72, 74, 1526, 1527; sec 0061, 0065, 0076, 0104) associated with the plurality of joints (71, 73; sec 0016, 0017, 0062, 0063) the motor control information being based, at least in part, on a robot trajectory (figs. 28, 29, 31, 31; sec 0019, 0029, 0075, 0094, 0102, 0107, 0115-0118) to perform a desired behavior and power limit information (sec 0075, 0076, 0114, 0115) associated with a power system (90; sec 0115, 0120, etc) of the robot, the motor control information including joint torque (sec 0096) information for the plurality of joints to perform the desired behavior; and
controlling the plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints of the robot based, at least in part, on the motor control information to perform the desired behavior sec 0061, 0065, 0075, 0076, 0104, 0114, 0115)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ballicoso such that a motor control information perfroms a desired behavior of the robot while managing power thereof respecting a power limit associated with a power system on the robot.
Regarding claim 2, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving the robot trajectory (col. 11, lines 55 to col. 12, lines 2; col. 12, lines 26-60), wherein determining the motor control information comprises performing an optimization based on the robot trajectory (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67), wherein the optimization includes a power limit constraint based on the power limit information (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67).
Regarding claim 3, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 2, wherein performing an optimization includes minimizing a cost function (col. 1, lines 47-64; col. 5, lines 29-45) associated with at least one objective, wherein minimizing the cost function is subject to one or more constraints including the power limit constraint (col. 1, lines 47-64; col. 5, lines 29-45; col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67).
Regarding claim 4, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 3, wherein the at least one objective includes a balance objective for the robot (col. 18, lines 6-19).
Regarding claim 5, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 3, wherein the one or more constraints includes limits of each of the plurality of motors (col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Regarding claim 6, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 3, wherein the one or more constraints includes environmental constraints (col. 1, lines 28-46; col. 2, lines 40-63; col. 6, lines 45-67).
Regarding claim 7, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the motor control information includes instantaneous motor currents for each of the plurality of motors (col. 3, 13-38; col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Regarding claim 8, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the joint torque information includes a plurality of joint torques for the plurality of joints (transforming torques into a set of actuator or motor commands to move the each of one or more joints; col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12),
Regarding claim 9, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
determining based, at least in part, on the power limit information associated with a power system of the robot, the robot trajectory (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 10, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 9, wherein determining the motor control information comprises performing an optimization based on the robot trajectory (col. 11, lines 55 to col. 12, lines 2; col. 12, lines 26-60), wherein the optimization includes a power limit constraint based on the power limit information (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-52).
Regarding claim 11, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the robot trajectory includes a plurality of forces that the robot should apply on its environment to achieve the desired behavior (col. 1, lines 28-46; col. 2, lines 40-63; col. 6, lines 45-67), and a plurality of accelerations for the plurality of joints (col. 1, lines 47-64; col. 3, 39-54; col. 4, lines 6-24).
Regarding claim 12, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the controller is a whole-body controller and the plurality of joints include each joint of the robot that is associated with one or more of the plurality of motors (col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Regarding claim 13, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 1, wherein the power system of the robot is an electric power system including at least one battery, and the motor control information includes motor currents for each of the plurality of motors (col. 3, 13-38; col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Regarding claim 14, Bellicoso discloses the controller of claim 13, wherein the power limit information includes power that can be provided by the at least one battery and/or power that can be consumed by the at least one battery during recharging of the at least one battery (col. 3, 13-38; col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Regarding claim 15, Bellicoso discloses a robot (robot; abstract; col. 1, lines 25 to col. 2, line 39; figs. 3-11), comprising:
a plurality of joints (col. 1, lines 47-64; lines 65; col. 2, lines 19-64);
a plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints (transforming torques into a set of actuator or motor commands to move the each of one or more joints; col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12);
a power system configured to provide power to the plurality of motors (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-52);
data processing hardware (col. 20, lines 20-33); and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (col. 20, lines 20-33) comprising:
determining motor control information for the plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints (transforming torques into a set of actuator or motor commands to move the each of one or more joints; col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12), the motor control information being based, at least in part, on a robot trajectory (col. 11, lines 55 to col. 12, lines 2; col. 12 , lines 26-60) to perform a desired behavior and power limit information [col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67; col. 14, lines 36-67; citing, “checks ………, whether certain metrics of the robot (such as joint limits, power output, or other metrics) have been violated….”] associated with the power system of the robot (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67), the motor control information including joint torque information for the plurality of joints to perform the desired behavior (col. 3, lines 31-38; col. 4, lines 62 to col. 5, lines 3); and
controlling the plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints of the robot based, at least in part, on the motor control information to perform the desired behavior (col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Bellicoso checks certain metrics of the robot so that motor control information is based on power limit information, wherein the power limit information includes checks to make sure that power output for the power system is not violated. As such claimed “power limit information” is tantamount to Bellicoso recited checking for power output not being violated of the power system.
Assuming that Bellicoso did not recite, the motor control information being based on power limit information, as argued by applicant, the examiner introduces Shein.
Shein teaches of a controller (140, fig. 15-17; abstract; sec 0010, 0070, 0073) for a robot, the robot including a plurality of joints, the controller programmed to execute a plurality of instructions (sec 0010-0013, 0028, 0073, 0074) that, when executed by a processor of a computing device perform a method comprising:
determining, by the computing device, motor control information for a plurality of motors (36, 46, 55, 72, 74, 1526, 1527; sec 0061, 0065, 0076, 0104) associated with the plurality of joints (71, 73; sec 0016, 0017, 0062, 0063) the motor control information being based, at least in part, on a robot trajectory (figs. 28, 29, 31, 31; sec 0019, 0029, 0075, 0094, 0102, 0107, 0115-0118) to perform a desired behavior and power limit information (sec 0075, 0076, 0114, 0115) associated with a power system (90; sec 0115, 0120, etc) of the robot, the motor control information including joint torque (sec 0096) information for the plurality of joints to perform the desired behavior and
controlling the plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints of the robot based, at least in part, on the motor control information to perform the desired behavior sec 0061, 0065, 0075, 0076, 0104, 0114, 0115)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ballicoso such that a motor control information perfroms a desired behavior of the robot while managing power thereof respecting a power limit associated with a power system on the robot.
Regarding claim 16, Bellicoso discloses the robot of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise:
receiving the robot trajectory (col. 11, lines 55 to col. 12, lines 2; col. 12, lines 26-60), wherein determining the motor control information comprises performing an optimization based on the robot trajectory (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67), wherein the optimization includes a power limit constraint based on the power limit information (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67).
Regarding claim 17, Bellicoso discloses the robot of claim 15, wherein the power system is an electric power system including at least one battery, and the motor control information includes motor currents for each of the plurality of motors (col. 3, 13-38; col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Regarding claim 18, Bellicoso discloses the robot of claim 17, wherein the power limit information includes power that can be provided by the at least one battery and/or power that can be consumed by the at least one battery during recharging of the at least one battery (col. 3, 13-38; col. 11, lines 12; col. 15, lines 7-35; col. 17, lines 33-60).
Regarding claim 19, Bellicoso discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
determining, by a computing system of a robot, motor control information for a plurality of motors associated with a plurality of joints the robot (transforming torques into a set of actuator or motor commands to move the each of one or more joints; col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12), the motor control information being based, at least in part, on a robot trajectory to perform a desired behavior and power limit information associated with a power system of the robot (col. 11, lines 55 to col. 12, lines 2; col. 12 , lines 26-60), the motor control information including joint torque information for the plurality of joints to perform the desired behavior (col. 3, lines 31-38; col. 4, lines 62 to col. 5, lines 3); and
controlling the plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints of the robot based, at least in part, on the motor control information to perform the desired behavior (transforming torques into a set of actuator or motor commands to move the each of one or more joints; col. 3, 13-38; actuators col. Lines 25 to col. 11, lines 12).
Bellicoso checks certain metrics of the robot so that motor control information is based on power limit information, wherein the power limit information includes checks to make sure that power output for the power system is not violated. As such claimed “power limit information” is tantamount to Bellicoso recited checking for power output not being violated of the power system.
Assuming that Bellicoso did not recite, the motor control information being based on power limit information, as argued by applicant, the examiner introduces Shein.
Shein teaches of a controller (140, fig. 15-17; abstract; sec 0010, 0070, 0073) for a robot, the robot including a plurality of joints, the controller programmed to execute a plurality of instructions (sec 0010-0013, 0028, 0073, 0074) that, when executed by a processor of a computing device perform a method comprising:
determining, by the computing device, motor control information for a plurality of motors (36, 46, 55, 72, 74, 1526, 1527; sec 0061, 0065, 0076, 0104) associated with the plurality of joints (71, 73; sec 0016, 0017, 0062, 0063) the motor control information being based, at least in part, on a robot trajectory (figs. 28, 29, 31, 31; sec 0019, 0029, 0075, 0094, 0102, 0107, 0115-0118) to perform a desired behavior and power limit information (sec 0075, 0076, 0114, 0115) associated with a power system (90; sec 0115, 0120, etc) of the robot, the motor control information including joint torque (sec 0096) information for the plurality of joints to perform the desired behavior and
controlling the plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints of the robot based, at least in part, on the motor control information to perform the desired behavior sec 0061, 0065, 0075, 0076, 0104, 0114, 0115)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ballicoso such that a motor control information perfroms a desired behavior of the robot while managing power thereof respecting a power limit associated with a power system on the robot.
Regarding claim 20, Bellicoso discloses the method of claim 19, further comprising:
receiving the robot trajectory (col. 11, lines 55 to col. 12, lines 2; col. 12, lines 26-60), wherein determining the motor control information comprises performing an optimization based on the robot trajectory (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67), wherein the optimization includes a power limit constraint based on the power limit information (col. 7, lines 26-36; col. 14, lines 36-67).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that, “ In response, the Examiner conceded that although Bellicoso does not describe considering power limit information associated with a power system of the robot when determining whether a candidate trajectory is feasible, determining a control strategy that takes into account the capabilities of the power system of a robot is well known…..” This assertion is false. The examiner never conceded to anything. The interview summary stated emphatically that no agreement was reached. Applicant in the response dated 10/27/2023 also admitted that no agreement was reached.
In response to the applicant’s amended claims, the examiner asserts the following.
Bellicoso checks certain metrics of the robot so that motor control information is based on power limit information, wherein the power limit information includes checks to make sure that power output for the power system is not violated. As such claimed “power limit information” is tantamount to Bellicoso recited checking for power output not being violated of the power system.
Assuming that Bellicoso did not recite, the motor control information being based on power limit information, as argued by applicant, the examiner introduces Shein.
Shein teaches of a controller (140, fig. 15-17; abstract; sec 0010, 0070, 0073) for a robot, the robot including a plurality of joints, the controller programmed to execute a plurality of instructions (sec 0010-0013, 0028, 0073, 0074) that, when executed by a processor of a computing device perform a method comprising:
determining, by the computing device, motor control information for a plurality of motors (36, 46, 55, 72, 74, 1526, 1527; sec 0061, 0065, 0076, 0104) associated with the plurality of joints (71, 73; sec 0016, 0017, 0062, 0063) the motor control information being based, at least in part, on a robot trajectory (figs. 28, 29, 31, 31; sec 0019, 0029, 0075, 0094, 0102, 0107, 0115-0118) to perform a desired behavior and power limit information (sec 0075, 0076, 0114, 0115) associated with a power system (90; sec 0115, 0120, etc) of the robot, the motor control information including joint torque (sec 0096) information for the plurality of joints to perform the desired behavior; and
controlling the plurality of motors associated with the plurality of joints of the robot based, at least in part, on the motor control information to perform the desired behavior sec 0061, 0065, 0075, 0076, 0104, 0114, 0115)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Ballicoso such that a motor control information perfroms a desired behavior of the robot while managing power thereof respecting a power limit associated with a power system on the robot.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONNIE MANCHO whose telephone number is (571)272-6984. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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 at 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.
/RONNIE M MANCHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657