Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f). The certified copy has been filed in parent application JP2023-080693 filed on 05/16/2023.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Talebi (US20200306998) in view of Blankespoor (US20190255701).
Regarding claim 1, Talebi teaches a robot control system comprising: a robot including an arm and a moving part; and a control device that controls the robot, wherein the control device includes (at least abstract disclosing the controller that controls the robot including a leg and a wheel):
a motion planning part that outputs a target motion of a motion of the arm and an allowable range for the motion of the moving part (at least [0003]. [0007] disclosing motion control of a robot by a manipulation input “target motion” for an arm to perform a task and torques for legs “movable parts” within constraints, see [0049] disclosing the robot manipulating the arm to target state while moving the wheels just within constraints to not collide with the pallet and to balance the robot. [0058]-[0064] disclosing a range of allowable joints angles and spatial limitations such as collision limitations);
an arm control part that outputs an arm control instruction associated with the target motion and an arm state transition ([0003] and [0049]-[0050] disclosing the movement of the arm to a target position which is indicative of a transition of a state from a current position to the target position to grasp an object. [0049] discloses maintaining the balance while the arm engages and lifts the box, i.e., based on target motion and transition of state of the arm);
a movement control part that generates a movement control instruction associated with a motion of the moving part to fall within the allowable range using the arm state transition ([0003], [0049]-[0050] disclosing the control of the joints based on the manipulation inputs and while the robot arm transitions to lifting the object by moving the joint torques within constraints “allowable range”), and
wherein the robot has the arm controlled by the arm control instruction and has the moving part controlled by the movement control instruction ([0003] and [0049]-[0050] disclosing the controlling of the arm and torques for the legs).
Talebi does not teach varying based on the target motion and an arm state transition.
Blankespoor teaches varying based on the target motion and an arm state transition ((abstract and [0068]-[0087] disclosing the wheels have a range of motion being set to be maintained behind the reach point of the arm, i.e., the range is behind the reach of the arm which is varied by the motion of the arm thus the target point and the transition of states from current point to the target point. [0068]-[0074] further disclosing while the robot moving the arm to target poses to lift an object to counterbalance using the movement of the wheel to be rearward of the reach point).
Blankespoor and Talebi are directed towards balancing the robot during movement of the arm that causes unbalances, thus it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Blankespoor with the teaching of Talebi to incorporate the balancing range of the wheels being behind the reach point in order to balance the robot and shift the COM of the robot to maintain balance yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor teaches a robot control system according to Claim 1,
wherein the arm control part generates the arm state transition by predicting a future arm control instruction using a state transition of the arm control instruction (Talebi [0056]-[0060] disclosing predicting joint angles to optimize control of the robot joints, based on the control input via Model predictive control).
Regarding claim 5, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor teaches the robot control system according to Claim 1,
wherein the allowable range is generated by setting at least one of a lower limit and an upper limit to a state of the moving part or an end effector of the arm (Talebi [0060] disclosing a range of motion for all the joints thus including at least an upper and lower limit).
Regarding claim 6, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor teaches the robot control system according to Claim 5,
wherein the state of the moving part or the end effector is any one of a position, a rotation, a translational speed, a rotational speed, a translational acceleration, a rotational acceleration, a translational jerk, and a rotational jerk (Talebi [0059] at least disclose the movement constraint where the robot).
Regarding claim 7, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor teaches robot control system according to Claim 5,
wherein the movement control part generates the movement control instruction based on a weight matrix for adjusting a scale of variation in the state of the moving part or the end effector within the allowable range (Talebi [0065]-[0066] disclosing the weight applied to the function including the torque to generate the torque within the allowable range of the joints).
While Talebi does not explicitly state weight matrix. Nevertheless, applying any mathematical formulae, including that of the claimed invention, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art because it facilitates known mathematical means for deriving a control of the robot as shown by Talebi. Since the invention failed to provide novel or unexpected results from the usage of said claimed formula, use of any mathematical means, including that of the claimed invention, would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 12-13 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, see above rejection.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Talebi (US20200306998) in view of Blankespoor (US20190255701) and Seo (US20130173054).
Regarding claim 2, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor teaches the robot control system according to Claim 1,
Talebi as modified by Blankespoor does not teach wherein the motion planning part generates a target track of a motion of the moving part within the allowable range, and wherein the movement control part generates the movement control instruction so as to decrease a difference from the target track.
Sue teaches wherein the motion planning part generates a target track of a motion of the moving part within the allowable range, and wherein the movement control part generates the movement control instruction so as to decrease a difference from the target track ([0027]-[0039] disclosing determining an area “allowable range” that is stable where the feet can be located and the ZMP existing within the area and moving the robot to walk based on the determined track thus to decrease a difference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Talebi as modified by Blankespoor to incorporate the teaching of Sue in order to stabilize the robot to land on an area that will make the landing stable for the robot as taught by Sue [0039]. It is also obvious to substitute the first method of Talebi of balancing a robot with the method of Sue yielding predictable results since they are both directed towards balancing a robot.
Regarding claim 3, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor teaches the robot control system according to Claim 1,
Sue teaches wherein the moving part of the robot includes a leg or a rotor blade ([0027]-[0039] disclosing determining an area “allowable range” that is stable where the feet can be located and the ZMP existing within the area and moving the robot to walk based on the determined track thus to decrease a difference) and
wherein the movement control part generates the movement control instruction associated with a state of an articulation of the leg or the rotor blade ([0027]-[0039] disclosing determining an area “allowable range” that is stable where the feet can be located and the ZMP existing within the area and moving the robot to walk based on the determined track thus to decrease a difference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Talebi as modified by Blankespoor to incorporate the teaching of Sue in order to stabilize the robot to land on an area that will make the landing stable for the robot as taught by Sue [0039]. It is also obvious to substitute the first method of Talebi of balancing a robot with the method of Sue yielding predictable results since they are both directed towards balancing a robot.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Talebi (US20200306998) in view of Blankespoor (US20190255701) and Sakaguchi (US20190351546).
Regarding claim 8, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor teaches the robot control system according to Claim 1, further comprising: an allowable range input part that inputs information associated with the allowable range (Talebi [0049] disclosing the controller as the allowable range input part receiving the movement constraints. [0060] disclosing the operator may input the operation task that determines the motion ranges).
Talebi as modified by Blankespoor does not teach an operation part that computes display information on the basis of the result of controlling the robot using the allowable range; and a display part that displays the display information.
Sakaguchi teaches an operation part that computes display information on the basis of the result of controlling the robot using the allowable range ([0037]-[0040] disclosing the device for controlling the joint angles according to the target position, [0055], [0082] and figures 4 and 5 disclosing displaying the angle corresponding to the joint angle of the input control within the allowable range of angles, see also [0157] ); and
a display part that displays the display information (Figure 4-5 displaying the information and [0055], [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Sakaguchi in order to inform the operator of allowable ranges of angles to improve operation programming of a robot as taught by Sakaguchi [0039]-[0041], [0055], [0082], [0157].
Regarding claim 9, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor as modified by Sakaguchi teaches the robot control system according to Claim 8,
Specifically, Sakaguchi teaches wherein the display information includes any one of: the allowable range; the state of the moving part or the arm; electric power consumed by the robot; and a completion time of the target motion of the arm (figures 3-5,[0037]-[0040], [0055], [0082], [0157] disclosing the displaying of the allowable range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Sakaguchi in order to inform the operator of allowable ranges of angles to improve operation programming of a robot as taught by Sakaguchi [0039]-[0041], [0055], [0082], [0157].
Regarding claim 10, Talebi as modified by Sakaguchi teaches the robot control system according to Claim 8,
wherein the information associated with the allowable range includes any one of the state of the moving part or the end effector of the arm to which the allowable range is set, an upper limit of the allowable range, and a lower limit of the allowable range (figures 3-5,[0037]-[0040], [0055], [0082], [0157] disclosing the displaying of the allowable range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Sakaguchi in order to inform the operator of allowable ranges of angles to improve operation programming of a robot as taught by Sakaguchi [0039]-[0041], [0055], [0082], [0157].
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Talebi (US20200306998) in view of Blankespoor (US20190255701) and Kostrzewski (US20180263714).
Regarding claim 11, Talebi as modified by Blankespoor teaches the robot control system according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a moving part motion command input part that inputs an allowable range for a motion of the moving part (Talebi [0049] disclosing received information including the allowable constraints for a task via input devices);
an arm motion command input part that inputs an arm motion command associated with a motion of the arm (Talebi [0049] disclosing the arm joint command to perform the task which may be identified by a manipulation input by a user);
a sensor that obtains information (Talebi [0047]-[0048] disclosing sensor information); and
wherein the arm control part generates an arm control instruction associated with the arm motion command and an arm state transition (Talebi [0049]-[0050] disclosing the arm control joint torques associated with a motion command to change states between lifting and gripping and reaching).
Kostrzewski teaches a display part that displays the information obtained by the sensor ([0023] disclosing a display to display the position of the arm effector based on a position sensor tracking the position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Talebi as modified by Blankespoor to incorporate the teaching of Kostrzewski of displaying information obtained by sensors in order to allow the user to track a position and provide feedback on a screen of allowed and constraint operations via feedback as taught by Kostrzewski [0023].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20070150105 disclosing balancing robot during grasping by bending knees.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B