DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This final office action is in response to the amendments filled on 12/19/2025. Claims 1, 18 and 22 are amended. Claims 1-24 are pending and examined below.
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
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(s) 1-3, 6-11, 13, 16, 18, 19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0001483 (“Milenkovic”), and in view of US 2024/0155241 (“Usui”), and further in view of US 2024/0042626 (“Kawaguchi”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 18 and 22), Milenkovic discloses a robotic system (see at least fig 1), comprising:
a robotic arm comprising a plurality of segments connected serially via a plurality of motor operated joints (see at least [0058], where “Each of the joints 20, 26, 29, 33, 38 and 50 are associated with an actuator 60, for example, an electric motor that may turn the portions of the respective joint with respect to each other”), each motor operated joint providing a corresponding degree of freedom of movement of the robotic arm (see at least [0056], where “the robot arm 12 may provide for six axes or 6 degrees of freedom implemented by a set of six joints”), the robotic arm being configured to have an end effector disposed at a distal end (see at least fig 1, where end link 52 holding tool 16), and the plurality of motor operated joints including a first motor operated joint that connects a first segment to a second segment (see at least fig 1, where joint 29 is connecting segment 24 and 30. [0058], each joint is associated with a motor), the first segment being connected at an end of the first segment opposite the first motor operated joint to a motor operated shoulder joint of the robotic arm (see at least fig 1, where 26 is a shoulder joint) and the second segment being connected at an end of the second segment opposite the first motor operated joint to motor operated elbow joint of the robotic arm (see at least fig 1, where joint 33 is elbow joint); and
a processor coupled to the robotic arm and configured to (see at least [0058]):
receive an end effector trajectory indicating a set of positions and orientations through which the end effector is to be moved from a start position and start orientation to an end position and end orientation (see at least fig 3, block 77; see also [0086], where “generating a path on the unit sphere connecting the end points”; see also [0011], where “intended position of the tool reference point and orientation”; see also [0092], [0107], [0111] and [0115]); and
determine a motion plan to actuate the respective motors of the plurality of joints to move the end effector through the end effector trajectory (see at least [0010], where “a robot-mechanism controller that identifies portions of a path that will produce excessive joint motion because of the singularity and produces a modified path according to a minimization of change in orientation of the tool manipulated by the robot while preserving tool path and velocity of a designated reference point along the axis line of the tool”; see also [0060]), motor operated joints and links other than the first motor operated joint in a preferred pose (see at least [0015], where “identifying a modified path portion providing the desired velocity with resulting tool position without exceeding any joint movement rate limits according to a minimization of a maximum deviation of a tool orientation of the modified path portion from the desired tool orientation.”; see also [0099], where “With joint 5 fixed and joint 6 allowed to vary”; see also fig 3, fig 14 and [0141]).
Milenkovic does not disclose the following limitations:
using the first joint to vary the distance between the shoulder joint and the elbow joint; and
a preferred pose achieved at least in part by operation of the first motorized joint.
However, Usui discloses a system wherein using the first joint to vary the distance between the shoulder joint and the elbow joint (see at least [0125], where “the state of the arm unit that can change together with the change in the distance between the active joints adjacent to each other across the link(s) or the angle formed by the links joining the active joints adjacent to each other, along with the operation of the passive mode change mechanism, can correspond to the “form of the arm unit”.”; see also fig 3, where elbow joint and shoulder joint are shown).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Milenkovic to incorporate the teachings of Usui by including the above feature for providing non-interrupted operations by adjusting distance between joint so that robotic arm is not stuck to a position.
Milenkovic does not disclose the following limitation:
a preferred pose achieved at least in part by operation of the first motorized joint.
However, Kawaguchi discloses a system wherein a preferred pose achieved at least in part by operation of the first motorized joint (see at least [0149], [0241-242] and [0245]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Milenkovic in view of Usui to incorporate the teachings of Kawaguchi by including the above feature for providing precise control of each joint for following a trajectory.
Regarding claim 2 (and similarly claim 19 and 23), Milenkovic further discloses a system wherein the motion plan avoids placing the robotic arm or any portion thereof in a position associated with a singularity (see at least [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Milenkovic further discloses a system wherein the preferred pose enables one or both of end effector acceleration and end effector speed to be optimized (see at least [0067], where “Referring now to FIG. 5, the determination of paths 86, 87 and 85 optimized with respect to joint velocity and acceleration”).
Regarding claim 6, Kawaguchi further discloses a system wherein the robotic arm comprises a seven degree of freedom (7DOF) robotic arm (see at least [0469], where “When the wrist joint has at least two rotational degrees of freedom, the total rotational degrees of freedom of the shoulder joint, the elbow joint, and the wrist joint are at least seven rotational degrees of freedom in the type-3 robot arm.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Milenkovic in view of Usui to incorporate the teachings of Kawaguchi by including the above feature for providing multiple options for following a trajectory.
Regarding claim 7, Kawaguchi further discloses a system wherein the 7DOF robotic arm is mounted on a rotatably mounted extender structure that provides an eighth degree of freedom (see at least [0148], where “A robot operation system 100 includes mainly a crawler mobile robot (abbreviated as a robot) 1, two on-site cameras 2 mounted on robot 1, an operation device 3, and a display device 4. An operator 90 is an operator who operates robot 1. Robot 1 is a robot that has two arms and moves with a crawler (caterpillar). Robot 1 includes a vehicle portion 1W and a humanoid 1H mounted on a front upper surface of vehicle portion 1W.”).
Regarding claim 8, Kawaguchi further discloses a system wherein the robotic arm is mounted on a mobile chassis (see at least fig 1, where 1w is mobile).
Regarding claim 9, Kawaguchi further discloses a system wherein control movement of the mobile chassis to position the robotic arm in a position associated with the end effector trajectory (see at least [0150], where “Operator 90 sits on a chair and operates robot 1 using a foot and a hand…Upper body input device 5 is operated manually by operator 90 to input the operation instruction to left and right arms of humanoid 1H. Mode switching pedal 6 is operated by the foot of operator 90 to change an input mode of upper body input device 5. Foot operation input device 7 inputs mainly the operation instruction to vehicle portion 1W.”; see also [0157] and [0159]).
Regarding claim 10, Milenkovic further discloses a system wherein select the position at least in part to facilitate use of the first joint to avoid placing the robotic arm or any portion thereof in a position associated with a singularity (see at least [0015] and [0047]).
Regarding claim 11 (and similarly claim 21), Milenkovic further discloses a system wherein determine the motion plan at least in part by iteratively selecting a joint or other posture trajectory, generating a motion plan based at least in part on the joint or other posture trajectory, and selecting for implementation a motion plan that best satisfies a selection criteria (see at least [0077] and [0221]).
Regarding claim 16, Milenkovic further discloses a system wherein the first joint comprises a linear joint configured to vary the combined length of the first segment and the second segment (see at least fig 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kawaguchi further discloses a system wherein the robotic arm comprises a first robotic arm that is mounted on a mobile chassis along with one or more other robotic arms (see at least fig 3).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0001483 (“Milenkovic”), and in view of US 2024/0155241 (“Usui”), and in view of US 2024/0042626 (“Kawaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2004/0054437 (“Kimura”).
Regarding claim 4, Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi does not disclose claim 4. However, Kimura discloses a system wherein the preferred pose enables the joints and links other than the first joint to be moved at higher speed while avoiding collision (see at least [0016], where “in a vertical multi-joint type robot shown in FIG. 10, as the same marks as the horizontal joint type robot shown in FIG. 8 are allotted, a point C of a joint part moves at a speed higher than that of a point A of a position of a hand 11 and further one point E of a second arm 12 moves at a high speed.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Kimura by including the above feature for achieving wide range of motion and performing complex tasks.
Claim(s) 5, 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0001483 (“Milenkovic”), and in view of US 2024/0155241 (“Usui”), and in view of US 2024/0042626 (“Kawaguchi”), as applied to claim 1, 18 and 22 above, and further in view of US 2025/0205911 (“Kikuchi”).
Regarding claim 5 (and similarly claim 20 and 24), Milenkovic in view of Usui Kawaguchi does not disclose claim 5. However, Kikuchi discloses a system wherein a first axis of rotation of the first joint is parallel to a second axis of rotation of the shoulder joint and a third axis of rotation of the elbow joint (see at least [0093], where “the robot 2 includes the base 21, the first arm 23 coupled rotatably around the first rotation axis J1 relative to the base 21, the second arm 24 having the base 3 formed by the frame-shaped member and rotating around the second rotation axis J2 parallel to the first rotation axis J1 relative to the first arm 23, the spline shaft 253 as the shaft placed at the opposite side to the first arm 23 of the second arm 24, the second joint actuator 28 as the drive unit rotationally driving the second arm 24 around the second rotation axis J2 relative to the first arm 23, and the spline nut 251 and the ball screw nut 252 as supporting portions supporting the spline shaft 253 to rotate around the third rotation axis J3 parallel to the second rotation axis J2 and move along the axial direction of the third rotation axis J3.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Kikuchi by including the above feature for reducing inertia and increasing precision.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0001483 (“Milenkovic”), and in view of US 2024/0155241 (“Usui”), and in view of US 2024/0042626 (“Kawaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2023/0278218 (“Terry”).
Regarding claim 14, Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi does not disclose claim 14. However, Terry discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to operate the first joint in a manner that enables the end effector trajectory to be realized without having any part of the robotic arm collide with a structure that defines a limit of or is present in an operating space in which the robotic arm is being used (see at least [0046], where “Many common joint limits are fully elbow extension or compression. Current orbit algorithms may get stuck in joint limits and be unable to complete the designated rotation trajectory, requiring manual user intervention to exit the limit and re-position the camera 12. FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram of an adjusted orbital trajectory 420 modified by the collision avoidance mode 14 and superimposed on the limit-free orbital trajectory 410.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Terry by including the above feature for reducing damage of the tools and increasing safety during procedure.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0001483 (“Milenkovic”), and in view of US 2024/0155241 (“Usui”), and in view of US 2024/0042626 (“Kawaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 12,397,440 (“Augenbraun”).
Regarding claim 12, Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi does not disclose claim 12. However, Augenbraun discloses a system wherein the selection criteria comprises a cost function (see at least col 13, line 29, where “the objective can take the form of a cost function, with a series of quantified possible goals.”).
Regarding claim 15, Augenbraun further discloses a system wherein use machine learning techniques to learn one or more strategies to use the first joint to operate the robotic arm in a manner that avoids placing the robotic arm or any portion thereof in a position associated with a singularity (see at least col 13, lines 30-34, where “Example goals may include, but are not limited to: Normed distance in configuration space, distance in task space, avoiding a singular configuration of the robot, avoiding obstacles, maintaining a predetermined distance from certain objects such as humans.”; see also col 13, lines 53-57, where “a robot in the real world may be trained to grasp, grip, push, or otherwise manipulate objects by training a neural network in a simulated environment which is then used by the robot to perform similar functions in the real world.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Augenbraun by including the above feature for providing collision free path while build a database that can be used in future.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0001483 (“Milenkovic”), and in view of US 2024/0155241 (“Usui”), and in view of US 2024/0042626 (“Kawaguchi”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0094187 (“Kanemoto”).
Regarding claim 17, Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi does not disclose claim 17. However, Kanemoto discloses a system wherein break the end effector trajectory down into two or more phases and to determine a respective motion plan for each phase (see at least [0099], where “the algorithm determining unit 542 can acquire the plan information from the trajectory path planning unit 530 and divides the trajectory path into a plurality of segments. The algorithm determining unit 542 may divide the trajectory path into the plurality of segments based on at least one of the magnitude of the transport velocity, the magnitude of the transport acceleration, and the amount of fluctuation in the transport acceleration.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Milenkovic in view of Usui and Kawaguchi to incorporate the teachings of Kanemoto by including the above feature for providing fast and efficient trajectory by determining path based on situation of a particular segment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657