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 Arguments
In light of interview conducted 1/5/2026, the objection to the abstract is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 101, and the rejection has accordingly been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 and 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Wang fails to teach or suggest “…In the non-contact operating mode, the contact force component is omitted…” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. During the telephone interview on 1/5/2026, Examiner indicated that paragraphs 35-43 of Wang imply the above limitation. Upon further review of the reference, Examiner points to paragraph [0030] of Wang to show that Wang teaches the above limitation. The rejection to follow has been augmented to better clarify the relationship between haptic feedback and contact force in Wang, and how it reads on the claimed invention. Because Wang’s haptic feedback is a scaled value of the contact force measured at the robot wrist, this indicates that when contact force is zero, the feedback force is also zero. If feedback force is zero, then "the contact force component is zero." Additionally, in the equation in [0042] of Wang further reinforces that when the contact force from the robot sensor is zero, so will be the feedback force due to contact.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-15, 17-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US-20160229050-A1).
Claim 12
Wang teaches
A method for controlling a telerobotic robot using an input device which includes a movable actuator,
(Wang - [0026] A controlling input device 14a such as a haptic joystick is in the operator station 14. Device 14a is connected with the robot 12a through wire or wireless communication such as communication link 16 of FIG. 1. An operator 14d operates the device 14a and looks either at a monitor 14b (see FIG. 1) to observe the robot 12a from a distance or through a barrier 18 that is between the robot 12a and the controlling input device 14a.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Joystick is a type of movable actuator.
the method comprising:
commanding with the input device a target pose of a robot-fixed reference of the telerobotic robot based on a detected position of the actuator;
(Wang - [0027] While not shown in FIG. 2, there is a controller such as controller 12b of FIG. 1 that is associated with robot 12a. The controller 12b is a computing device connected to the robot 12a that is programmed to respond to commands from the controlling input device 14a to use the tool 12d to perform a predetermined operation on part 12e.)
EXAMINER NOTE: As shown above in [0026], the input device comprises a joystick. Joysticks are used to generate control signals based on their detected position.
commanding a target force of the actuator;
(Wang - [0039] FIG. 6 shows an exemplary system structured to provide haptic force feedback to an operator input which is correlated with the contact force associated with a tele-operated robot.)
operating the robot in a non-contact operating mode while no contact with an obstacle is detected, or after contact with an obstacle is no longer detected;
(Wang - [0035] … The force limiting function block 42 does not need to be always active since the measured force magnitude F.sub.m can be much smaller than the preset force limit F.sub.lim. This is true when the robot 12a is not in contact with any object.)
And operating the robot in a contact operating mode in response to detecting a contact of the robot-fixed reference with an obstacle while moving in a contact direction;
(Wang - [0036] At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated;)
wherein, in the contact operating mode, the target force comprises a contact force component of a virtual spring that simulates a contact of the robot-fixed reference with an obstacle;
(Wang - [0040] In certain embodiments a virtual spring control technique may be utilized to determine a virtual constraint force. … When an operator continues to push the input device beyond the force limit, P.sub.desired will continue to increase while P.sub.actual stays unchanged. As a result, F.sub.vc will be increased accordingly. Due to the negative sign of the virtual spring constant, this virtual force gives the operator resistance feedback correlated with the force that would be experienced by robot arm if responding to the operator command. This force may increase so as to eventually stop the input device from moving further.)
And in the non-contact operating mode, the contact force component is omitted.
(Wang - [0030] At the operator station 14 there may be provided a coordinate transform and scaling logic block 38 for the received contact force measurement signal 36. Block 38 is structured to utilize a force feedback gain value for scaling received feedback. The force feedback gain value determines how much force the operator will actually feel from the controlling device 14a in response to a given feedback magnitude. Since the haptic force generated by the device 14a is typically much smaller than the actual contact force sensed by the force sensor 12c, the higher the feedback gain, the more realistic the operator 14d will feel about the environment. However a higher force feedback gain may cause the haptic loop to be unstable.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Because the haptic feedback is a scaled value of the contact force measured at the robot wrist, this indicates that when contact force is zero, the feedback force is also zero. If feedback force is zero, then "the contact force component is zero."
(Wang - [0042] Certain embodiments may utilize feedback output from a force sensor on the robot to determine the virtual constraint force. For example, a force sensor output value may be scaled (e.g., scaled down linearly from the robot scale to the operator input device scale) and the scaled value may be utilized as the virtual constraint force. The scaled value may also be processed through a low pass filter to mitigate undesired control behavior. A proportional haptic force may be provided by the scaled value of the actual contact force and may vary linearly with the feedback force from one or more robot force sensors. In one example, a scaled filtered feedback force used to provide haptic feedback force may be determined by controls structured to implement the equation: Fscaled_filtered_feedback=LPF(SF*Frobot_sensor) where Fscaled_filtered_feedback is the scaled filtered feedback force, LPF is a low pass filter function, SF is a scaling factor, and Frobot_sensor is feedback force from a robot sensor.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The above equation further reinforces that when the contact force from the robot sensor is zero, so will be the feedback force due to contact.
Claim 13
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
wherein the steps of the method are repeated at least once, in sequence.
(Wang - [0033] Referring now to FIG. 4, there is shown for a tele-operated robot an embodiment for a position/velocity-force bilateral control loop 40 with a force limiting control function 42. )
EXAMINER NOTE: Control loop indicates that the process is repeatedly performed.
Claim 14
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
in the contact operating mode, a commanding of a movement of the robot-fixed reference in the contact direction is reduced relative to a commanding of the movement of the robot-fixed reference in the contact direction in the non-contact operating mode.
(Wang - [0038] From either block 54 or 55 the flow proceeds to block 56 where the position and velocity reference is scaled down according to the new maximal allowed speed. The force limiting function shown in FIG. 5 limits the contact force between the robot and its environment. Additional controls are utilized to provide intuitive feedback to the operator that the contact force is reaching the limit. For control loop 40 shown in FIG. 4, the operator can continue to push forward the input device 14a of FIG. 2 even though the robot 12a stops moving due to the force limiting function.)
Claim 15
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 14 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
wherein the commanding of the movement of the robot-fixed reference in the contact direction is suppressed in the contact operating mode.
(Wang - [0038] From either block 54 or 55 the flow proceeds to block 56 where the position and velocity reference is scaled down according to the new maximal allowed speed. The force limiting function shown in FIG. 5 limits the contact force between the robot and its environment. Additional controls are utilized to provide intuitive feedback to the operator that the contact force is reaching the limit. For control loop 40 shown in FIG. 4, the operator can continue to push forward the input device 14a of FIG. 2 even though the robot 12a stops moving due to the force limiting function.)
Claim 17
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
detecting a contact of the robot-fixed reference with an obstacle in the direction of contact in response to an external force on the robot-fixed reference exceeding a predetermined limit value
(Wang - [0036] At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated; if force limiting is active, but Fm is smaller than 20% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to not active; otherwise no changes to the force limiting state.)
and a direction of movement of the robot-fixed reference according to actuation of the actuator comprises a component opposite to a direction of the external force.
(Wang - [0040] In certain embodiments a virtual spring control technique may be utilized to determine a virtual constraint force. This control technique may be independent from and need not utilize feedback output from a force sensor on the robot, although the techniques may be used in combination as described below. In one example, controls structured to implement the equation F.sub.vc−K*(P.sub.desired−P.sub.actual) may be used to set a virtual spring of constant K between the desired robot position P.sub.desired and the actual robot position P.sub.actual. When an operator continues to push the input device beyond the force limit, P.sub.desired will continue to increase while P.sub.actual stays unchanged. As a result, F.sub.vc will be increased accordingly. Due to the negative sign of the virtual spring constant, this virtual force gives the operator resistance feedback correlated with the force that would be experienced by robot arm if responding to the operator command. This force may increase so as to eventually stop the input device from moving further.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The negative sign indicates that the force opposes the direction of movement.
Claim 18
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
further comprising determining the contact direction based on the external force at the robot-fixed reference.
(Wang - [0040] In certain embodiments a virtual spring control technique may be utilized to determine a virtual constraint force. This control technique may be independent from and need not utilize feedback output from a force sensor on the robot, although the techniques may be used in combination as described below. In one example, controls structured to implement the equation F.sub.vc−K*(P.sub.desired−P.sub.actual) may be used to set a virtual spring of constant K between the desired robot position P.sub.desired and the actual robot position P.sub.actual. When an operator continues to push the input device beyond the force limit, P.sub.desired will continue to increase while P.sub.actual stays unchanged. As a result, F.sub.vc will be increased accordingly. Due to the negative sign of the virtual spring constant, this virtual force gives the operator resistance feedback correlated with the force that would be experienced by robot arm if responding to the operator command. This force may increase so as to eventually stop the input device from moving further.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The negative sign indicates that the force opposes the direction of movement.
Claim 19
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 18 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
wherein the contact direction is determined in a direction opposite to a direction of the external force.
(Wang - [0040] In certain embodiments a virtual spring control technique may be utilized to determine a virtual constraint force. This control technique may be independent from and need not utilize feedback output from a force sensor on the robot, although the techniques may be used in combination as described below. In one example, controls structured to implement the equation F.sub.vc−K*(P.sub.desired−P.sub.actual) may be used to set a virtual spring of constant K between the desired robot position P.sub.desired and the actual robot position P.sub.actual. When an operator continues to push the input device beyond the force limit, P.sub.desired will continue to increase while P.sub.actual stays unchanged. As a result, F.sub.vc will be increased accordingly. Due to the negative sign of the virtual spring constant, this virtual force gives the operator resistance feedback correlated with the force that would be experienced by robot arm if responding to the operator command. This force may increase so as to eventually stop the input device from moving further.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The negative sign indicates that the force opposes the direction of movement.
Claim 20
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
wherein the contact force component of the virtual spring is a function of at least one of:
a current and/or previous pose of the robot-fixed reference;
a predetermined spring stiffness of the virtual spring;
(Wang - [0040] In certain embodiments a virtual spring control technique may be utilized to determine a virtual constraint force. This control technique may be independent from and need not utilize feedback output from a force sensor on the robot, although the techniques may be used in combination as described below. In one example, controls structured to implement the equation F.sub.vc−K*(P.sub.desired−P.sub.actual) may be used to set a virtual spring of constant K between the desired robot position P.sub.desired and the actual robot position P.sub.actual. When an operator continues to push the input device beyond the force limit, P.sub.desired will continue to increase while P.sub.actual stays unchanged. As a result, F.sub.vc will be increased accordingly. Due to the negative sign of the virtual spring constant, this virtual force gives the operator resistance feedback correlated with the force that would be experienced by robot arm if responding to the operator command. This force may increase so as to eventually stop the input device from moving further.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The spring force is determined based on the equation above. K corresponds to spring stiffness, P.sub.actual corresponds to previous robot position, and P.sub.desired corresponds to current robot position.
or a predetermined scaling between adjustments of the actuator and movements of the robot-fixed reference.
(Wang - [0042] Certain embodiments may utilize feedback output from a force sensor on the robot to determine the virtual constraint force. For example, a force sensor output value may be scaled (e.g., scaled down linearly from the robot scale to the operator input device scale) and the scaled value may be utilized as the virtual constraint force. … A proportional haptic force may be provided by the scaled value of the actual contact force and may vary linearly with the feedback force from one or more robot force sensors.)
Claim 24
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
in at least one of the contact operating mode or in the non-contact operating mode, an external force at the robot-fixed reference is not transmitted to the actuator.
(Wang - [0036] At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated; if force limiting is active, but Fm is smaller than 20% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to not active; otherwise no changes to the force limiting state.)
Claim 25
Wang teaches
A system for controlling a telerobotic robot using an input device which includes a movable actuator,
the system comprising
an input device controller that comprises:
means for commanding a target pose of a robot-fixed reference of the telerobotic robot based on a detected position of the actuator;
(Wang - [0026] A controlling input device 14a such as a haptic joystick is in the operator station 14. Device 14a is connected with the robot 12a through wire or wireless communication such as communication link 16 of FIG. 1. An operator 14d operates the device 14a and looks either at a monitor 14b (see FIG. 1) to observe the robot 12a from a distance or through a barrier 18 that is between the robot 12a and the controlling input device 14a.
[0027] While not shown in FIG. 2, there is a controller such as controller 12b of FIG. 1 that is associated with robot 12a. The controller 12b is a computing device connected to the robot 12a that is programmed to respond to commands from the controlling input device 14a to use the tool 12d to perform a predetermined operation on part 12e.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Joystick is a type of movable actuator.
means for commanding a target force of the actuator; and
(Wang – [0039] FIG. 6 shows an exemplary system structured to provide haptic force feedback to an operator input which is correlated with the contact force associated with a tele-operated robot.
[0045] The blocks and operations of the system of FIG. 6 may be implemented using a number of different computing system arrangements and configurations. For example, in certain embodiments a first computing system may be structured to receive input from an operator control device indicating position or movement of the operator input device, process the received input, and provide a resulting output to a communication link.)
means for operating the robot:
in a non-contact operating mode while no contact with an obstacle is detected, or after contact with an obstacle is no longer detected,
(Wang - [0035] … The force limiting function block 42 does not need to be always active since the measured force magnitude F.sub.m can be much smaller than the preset force limit F.sub.lim. This is true when the robot 12a is not in contact with any object.)
And in a contact operating mode in response to detecting a contact of the robot-fixed reference with an obstacle while moving in a contact direction;
(Wang - [0036] At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated;)
wherein, in the contact operating mode, the target force comprises a contact force component of a virtual spring that simulates a contact of the robot-fixed reference with an obstacle;
(Wang - [0040] In certain embodiments a virtual spring control technique may be utilized to determine a virtual constraint force. … When an operator continues to push the input device beyond the force limit, P.sub.desired will continue to increase while P.sub.actual stays unchanged. As a result, F.sub.vc will be increased accordingly. Due to the negative sign of the virtual spring constant, this virtual force gives the operator resistance feedback correlated with the force that would be experienced by robot arm if responding to the operator command. This force may increase so as to eventually stop the input device from moving further.)
And in the non-contact operating mode, the contact force component is omitted.
(Wang - [0030] At the operator station 14 there may be provided a coordinate transform and scaling logic block 38 for the received contact force measurement signal 36. Block 38 is structured to utilize a force feedback gain value for scaling received feedback. The force feedback gain value determines how much force the operator will actually feel from the controlling device 14a in response to a given feedback magnitude. Since the haptic force generated by the device 14a is typically much smaller than the actual contact force sensed by the force sensor 12c, the higher the feedback gain, the more realistic the operator 14d will feel about the environment. However a higher force feedback gain may cause the haptic loop to be unstable.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Because the haptic feedback is a scaled value of the contact force measured at the robot wrist, this indicates that when contact force is zero, the feedback force is also zero. If feedback force is zero, then "the contact force component is zero."
(Wang - [0042] Certain embodiments may utilize feedback output from a force sensor on the robot to determine the virtual constraint force. For example, a force sensor output value may be scaled (e.g., scaled down linearly from the robot scale to the operator input device scale) and the scaled value may be utilized as the virtual constraint force. The scaled value may also be processed through a low pass filter to mitigate undesired control behavior. A proportional haptic force may be provided by the scaled value of the actual contact force and may vary linearly with the feedback force from one or more robot force sensors. In one example, a scaled filtered feedback force used to provide haptic feedback force may be determined by controls structured to implement the equation: Fscaled_filtered_feedback=LPF(SF*Frobot_sensor) where Fscaled_filtered_feedback is the scaled filtered feedback force, LPF is a low pass filter function, SF is a scaling factor, and Frobot_sensor is feedback force from a robot sensor.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The above equation further reinforces that when the contact force from the robot sensor is zero, so will be the feedback force due to contact.
Claim 26
Wang teaches
A computer program product for controlling a telerobotic robot using an input device that includes a movable actuator, the computer program product comprising program code stored on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium,
(Wang - [0015] The controller 12b has the program which when executed controls the motion of the robot 12a to perform work.
[0027] While not shown in FIG. 2, there is a controller such as controller 12b of FIG. 1 that is associated with robot 12a. The controller 12b is a computing device connected to the robot 12a that is programmed to respond to commands from the controlling input device 14a to use the tool 12d to perform a predetermined operation on part 12e.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Joystick is a type of movable actuator.
the program code, when executed on a computer, causing the computer to:
command a target pose of a robot-fixed reference of the telerobotic robot based on a detected position of the actuator;
(Wang - [0026] A controlling input device 14a such as a haptic joystick is in the operator station 14. Device 14a is connected with the robot 12a through wire or wireless communication such as communication link 16 of FIG. 1. An operator 14d operates the device 14a and looks either at a monitor 14b (see FIG. 1) to observe the robot 12a from a distance or through a barrier 18 that is between the robot 12a and the controlling input device 14a.
[0027] While not shown in FIG. 2, there is a controller such as controller 12b of FIG. 1 that is associated with robot 12a. The controller 12b is a computing device connected to the robot 12a that is programmed to respond to commands from the controlling input device 14a to use the tool 12d to perform a predetermined operation on part 12e.)
EXAMINER NOTE: As shown above in [0026], the input device comprises a joystick. Joysticks are used to generate control signals based on their detected position.
command a target force of the actuator;
(Wang – [0039] FIG. 6 shows an exemplary system structured to provide haptic force feedback to an operator input which is correlated with the contact force associated with a tele-operated robot.)
operate the robot in a non-contact operating mode while no contact with an obstacle is detected, or after contact with an obstacle is no longer detected; and
(Wang - [0035] … The force limiting function block 42 does not need to be always active since the measured force magnitude F.sub.m can be much smaller than the preset force limit F.sub.lim. This is true when the robot 12a is not in contact with any object.)
operate the robot in a contact operating mode in response to detecting a contact of the robot-fixed reference with an obstacle while moving in a contact direction;
(Wang - [0036] At block 51 of the flowchart, the magnitude of the measured force Fm is calculated. The next step as shown in block 52 is determining when the force limiting control function should be active. An exemplary criterion in for that determination is: if force limiting is not active, and Fm is greater than 80% of F.sub.lim, then force limiting is set to activated;)
wherein, in the contact operating mode, the target force comprises a contact force component of a virtual spring that simulates a contact of the robot-fixed reference with an obstacle; and
(Wang - [0040] In certain embodiments a virtual spring control technique may be utilized to determine a virtual constraint force. … When an operator continues to push the input device beyond the force limit, P.sub.desired will continue to increase while P.sub.actual stays unchanged. As a result, F.sub.vc will be increased accordingly. Due to the negative sign of the virtual spring constant, this virtual force gives the operator resistance feedback correlated with the force that would be experienced by robot arm if responding to the operator command. This force may increase so as to eventually stop the input device from moving further.)
in the non-contact operating mode, the contact force component is omitted.
(Wang - [0030] At the operator station 14 there may be provided a coordinate transform and scaling logic block 38 for the received contact force measurement signal 36. Block 38 is structured to utilize a force feedback gain value for scaling received feedback. The force feedback gain value determines how much force the operator will actually feel from the controlling device 14a in response to a given feedback magnitude. Since the haptic force generated by the device 14a is typically much smaller than the actual contact force sensed by the force sensor 12c, the higher the feedback gain, the more realistic the operator 14d will feel about the environment. However a higher force feedback gain may cause the haptic loop to be unstable.)
EXAMINER NOTE: Because the haptic feedback is a scaled value of the contact force measured at the robot wrist, this indicates that when contact force is zero, the feedback force is also zero. If feedback force is zero, then "the contact force component is zero."
(Wang - [0042] Certain embodiments may utilize feedback output from a force sensor on the robot to determine the virtual constraint force. For example, a force sensor output value may be scaled (e.g., scaled down linearly from the robot scale to the operator input device scale) and the scaled value may be utilized as the virtual constraint force. The scaled value may also be processed through a low pass filter to mitigate undesired control behavior. A proportional haptic force may be provided by the scaled value of the actual contact force and may vary linearly with the feedback force from one or more robot force sensors. In one example, a scaled filtered feedback force used to provide haptic feedback force may be determined by controls structured to implement the equation: Fscaled_filtered_feedback=LPF(SF*Frobot_sensor) where Fscaled_filtered_feedback is the scaled filtered feedback force, LPF is a low pass filter function, SF is a scaling factor, and Frobot_sensor is feedback force from a robot sensor.)
EXAMINER NOTE: The above equation further reinforces that when the contact force from the robot sensor is zero, so will be the feedback force due to contact.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kashiwagi (US-5129044-A).
Claim 16
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Kashiwagi teaches
a commanding of a movement of the robot-fixed reference in a direction perpendicular to the contact direction is the same for operation of the robot in the contact operating mode and in the non-contact operating mode;
(Kashiwagi - [col 19, ln 13-29] To sum up, the first to third embodiments as described offer the following advantages. (1) the directions of axes of the coordinate system on which the position and force are controlled can be set in any desired directions so that the control is performed with the coordinate system which is optimum for the operation to be performed, whereby the operation is conducted in an adequate manner with a high level of efficiency. (2) In case of the profiling operation, the work surface coordinate system can be used as the arbitrary coordinate system, so that it is possible to press the end effector in the direction of the line normal to the work or to set a virtual spring which acts in this direction, while effecting a feed in the tangential direction independently of the pressing or incorporation of the virtual spring in the normal direction, thus enabling the operation to be performed adequately and efficiently. )
EXAMINER NOTE: Kashiwagi teaches removal of the spring force for perpendicular movement during contact. As shown above, Wang teaches at [0035] that there is no virtual spring force present in the non-contact mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang’s force feedback control with Kashiwagi’s suggestion to disregard the spring force in non-contact directions in order to enable adequate and efficient operation.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Piene (US 20210030498 A1).
Claim 21
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang further teaches
wherein the target force, at least in the contact operating mode, comprises a damping component …
(Wang - [0041] In certain embodiments a dampened differential velocity control technique may be utilized to determine the virtual constraint force. … Controls structured to implement the equation F.sub.vc=−D*(V.sub.desired−V.sub.actual) may be used to set a virtual damper of constant D between the desired robot speed feedforward V.sub.desired and the actual robot speed feedforward V.sub.actual. This difference of the speed feedforward may be the speed reduction shown in block 54 of flowchart FIG. 5. In certain embodiments a combined virtual spring and dampened differential velocity control technique may be utilized to determine the virtual constraint force.)
EXAMINER NOTE: As established above, the constraint force is present in the contact mode. The damping may be a component of this force.
Wang's damping force is said to be dependent upon the commanded speed of the robot and the current speed of the robot. While Wang may not explicitly state that the damping force is dependent on a speed at which the actuator is adjusted, Peine teaches
… damping component that is a function of a speed at which the actuator is adjusted.
(Piene - [0021] … in response to a determination that the user is disengaged from the surgeon console, cause the robotic surgical system to operate in a safe mode.
[0011] In embodiments, the robotic surgical system further comprises a computing device. At least one of the surgeon console or the tracking device is further configured to, at a time when the robotic surgical system operates in the safe mode, restrict movement of the handle from a previous position of the handle;
[0015] In embodiments, the surgeon console includes a plurality of motors corresponding to the handle, each of the motors being operably coupled to the handle and being associated with a direction of movement of the handle. At a time when the robotic surgical system operates in the safe mode, at least one of the surgeon console or the tracking device is further configured to compute a velocity of a movement of the handle; compute a direction of the movement of the handle; compute, based on the velocity of the movement of the handle, a force in a direction opposite to the direction of the movement of the handle; identify, among the plurality of motors of the handle, a motor associated with the direction opposite to the direction of the movement of the handle; and cause actuation of the identified motor in the direction opposite to the direction of the movement of the handle to generate the computed force in the direction opposite to the direction of the movement of the handle.)
In Piene's disclosure, the system monitors the user for signs that the user is distracted or disengaged. If the user is disengaged, the system determines speed at which the handle (actuator) is moved. Based on this determination, the system determines a force to be transmitted to the actuator to oppose movement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang's force control with Piene's suggestion to incorporate a damping component based on actuation speed in order to mitigate safety risks stemming from user distractions.
(piene - [0032] The present disclosure is directed to robotic surgical systems, devices, methods, and computer-readable media that mitigate safety risks stemming from surgeon distraction from engagement with robotic surgical systems during surgical robotic procedures.)
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hsu (US 20140276938 A1).
Claim 22
Wang teaches the limitations of claim 12 as outlined above. Wang may not explicitly teach the following limitations in combination. However, Hsu teaches
wherein the target force in the non-contact operating mode comprises a damping component that depends on a speed at which the actuator is adjusted.
(Hsu - [0044] Haptic feedback is also envisioned in certain exemplary embodiments. For example, the joystick can also be used to apply gradually increasing force (or sudden increases) in a certain direction to limit the velocity or acceleration of a user's input such that it does not exceed a pre-determined safe value, or a hardware limitation.
[0048] In one exemplary embodiment, tactile feedback is added to either guide motion so as to eliminate roll being unintentionally commanded or to provide a sensory communication to the surgeon of the amount of roll being imparted to the input device. Haptic forces could be applied to the input device in the form of a centering force to assist the user in moving predominantly in only one axis without precluding simultaneous motion. This force could be overcome by the user (such as a detent) to enable simultaneous motion in both axis. In addition, the magnitude of the resistive force could be scaled based on the velocity of the input. One technique for this embodiment would contemplate force impediments for faster, larger motions to be restricted but slower, finer motion would be impediment-free so that the user is free to combine distinct input modes such as insert and roll in that approach. One advantage of this embodiment is the assistance of insertion and retraction without accidental rolling of the guidewire.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang's force control with Hsu's always-active damping force in order to prevent the robot from exceeding safe or practical limitations while alerting the user that commanded input is not possible.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Hsu as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Piene (US 20210030498 A1)
Claim 23
The combination of Wang and Hsu teaches the limitations of claim 22 as outlined above. As shown above, the cited combination teaches
wherein the target force in the non-contact operating mode comprises a damping component that depends on a speed at which the actuator is adjusted
(Hsu - [0044] Haptic feedback is also envisioned in certain exemplary embodiments. For example, the joystick can also be used to apply gradually increasing force (or sudden increases) in a certain direction to limit the velocity or acceleration of a user's input such that it does not exceed a pre-determined safe value, or a hardware limitation.
[0048] In one exemplary embodiment, tactile feedback is added to either guide motion so as to eliminate roll being unintentionally commanded or to provide a sensory communication to the surgeon of the amount of roll being imparted to the input device. Haptic forces could be applied to the input device in the form of a centering force to assist the user in moving predominantly in only one axis without precluding simultaneous motion. This force could be overcome by the user (such as a detent) to enable simultaneous motion in both axis. In addition, the magnitude of the resistive force could be scaled based on the velocity of the input. One technique for this embodiment would contemplate force impediments for faster, larger motions to be restricted but slower, finer motion would be impediment-free so that the user is free to combine distinct input modes such as insert and roll in that approach. One advantage of this embodiment is the assistance of insertion and retraction without accidental rolling of the guidewire.)
As established above, Wang teaches the use of a damping force while in a contact mode of operation.
(Wang - [0041] In certain embodiments a dampened differential velocity control technique may be utilized to determine the virtual constraint force. … Controls structured to implement the equation F.sub.vc=−D*(V.sub.desired−V.sub.actual) may be used to set a virtual damper of constant D between the desired robot speed feedforward V.sub.desired and the actual robot speed feedforward V.sub.actual. This difference of the speed feedforward may be the speed reduction shown in block 54 of flowchart FIG. 5. In certain embodiments a combined virtual spring and dampened differential velocity control technique may be utilized to determine the virtual constraint force.)
EXAMINER NOTE: As established above, the constraint force is present in the contact mode. The damping may be a component of this force.
Wang's damping force is said to be dependent upon the commanded speed of the robot and the current speed of the robot. While Wang may not explicitly state that the damping force is dependent on a speed at which the actuator is adjusted, Peine teaches a damping force that depends on a speed at which the actuator is adjusted, and thus, in combination with Wang and Hsu satisfied the limitation of
…in the same way as in the contact operating mode.
(Piene - [0021] … in response to a determination that the user is disengaged from the surgeon console, cause the robotic surgical system to operate in a safe mode.
[0011] In embodiments, the robotic surgical system further comprises a computing device. At least one of the surgeon console or the tracking device is further configured to, at a time when the robotic surgical system operates in the safe mode, restrict movement of the handle from a previous position of the handle;
[0015] In embodiments, the surgeon console includes a plurality of motors corresponding to the handle, each of the motors being operably coupled to the handle and being associated with a direction of movement of the handle. At a time when the robotic surgical system operates in the safe mode, at least one of the surgeon console or the tracking device is further configured to compute a velocity of a movement of the handle; compute a direction of the movement of the handle; compute, based on the velocity of the movement of the handle, a force in a direction opposite to the direction of the movement of the handle; identify, among the plurality of motors of the handle, a motor associated with the direction opposite to the direction of the movement of the handle; and cause actuation of the identified motor in the direction opposite to the direction of the movement of the handle to generate the computed force in the direction opposite to the direction of the movement of the handle.)
In Piene's disclosure, the system monitors the user for signs that the user is distracted or disengaged. If the user is disengaged, the system determines speed at which the handle (actuator) is moved. Based on this determination, the system determines a force to be transmitted to the actuator to oppose movement. Hsu's teachings demonstrate the benefits of incorporating a damping force for general control of the robot in order to prevent the robot from exceeding safety or hardware limitations for a given process, and alert the operator that the commanded input is inconsistent with these limitations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang's force control with Piene's suggestion to incorporate a damping component based on actuation speed in order to mitigate safety risks stemming from user distractions, and to further modify Wang's force control with Hsu's always-active damping force in order to prevent the robot from exceeding safe or practical limitations while alerting the user that commanded input is not possible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMES MILLER WATTS whose telephone number is (703)756-1249. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-TH.
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.
/JAMES MILLER WATTS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657