Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 18/669,623 and the response to election / restriction filed on 11/18/2025.
3. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Election/Restrictions
4. Pursuant to communications filed on 11/18/2025, in response to the Restriction/Election requirement, Applicant has elected Group I, including claims 1-18, without traverse, and therefore claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration. The elected claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1:
101 Analysis: Step 1
Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., a process), and therefore is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong I
Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Regarding Claim 1, the claim is determined to fall under the category of an abstract idea,
defined as the following: a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human
activity, and/or mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for designing a robotic device, comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
receive a target animation for a character to be represented by the robotic device;
receive an initial model of the robotic device, the model comprising a plurality of configurable joints and a plurality of actuators;
generate a kinematic design of the robotic device based on the initial model and the target animation;
generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design;
generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters; and
deploy the physical design to the robotic device.
Under the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrases bolded above in
claim 1 recite mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical calculations and/or mental processes, where the limitations can be performed in the human mind.
With regards to “generate a kinematic design of the robotic device based on the initial model and the target animation,” in the context of this claim is a mathematical concept, wherein mathematical calculations are performed to output a solution to the calculations. As this step of generating the kinematic design of the robotic device is described within Table 3 located within paragraph [0119] of the specification of the instant application, is simply computing mathematical calculations to output an answer, simple enough for a human to perform.
With regards to “generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human generates (i.e., determines, selects, chooses, etc.) parameters based on previously solved mathematical calculations. Humans have the ability, entirely within the mind, to determine parameters/variables for actuators based on known information. For example, if the mathematical calculation outputted that the joint needs to be positioned from coordinate (x0, y0) to coordinate (x1, y1), the human can select input variables to the actuators to move the joints to the desired position, all within the brain.
With regards to “generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human generates (i.e., determines, selects, chooses, etc.) parameters to apply to a physical robot based on previously determined parameters. With the knowledge of the control parameters, humans have the ability within the mind to select how to apply them to a physical robot. For example, if it has been determined that a control parameter for an actuator is to drive it at a velocity of 5 rotations per second, a human can reasonably determine to apply that same velocity to a physical robot, all within the mind.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong II
Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application?
The additional elements of claim 1 do not recite the judicial exception into a practical
application. The additional elements of claim 1, as shown below, are underlined, while the
abstract ideas of the claim are bolded.
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for designing a robotic device, comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to:
receive a target animation for a character to be represented by the robotic device;
receive an initial model of the robotic device, the model comprising a plurality of configurable joints and a plurality of actuators;
generate a kinematic design of the robotic device based on the initial model and the target animation;
generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design;
generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters; and
deploy the physical design to the robotic device.
The Examiner has determined that the additional elements of the claim underlined above do not integrate the abstract ideas listed above into a practical application.
Regarding the limitation “comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions,” these are simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them. As the processor and memory are described within the specification and the drawings, fails to describe any special or unique structures or features to the processor and memory that would recite anything above generic computing elements.
Regarding the limitation “receive a target animation for a character to be represented by the robotic device,” this is simply an insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering, without anything else recited in the limitation above this.
Regarding the limitation “receive an initial model of the robotic device, the model comprising a plurality of configurable joints and a plurality of actuators,” the Examiner submits that the received initial model is simply an “apply it” step, without anything else to bring it above this.
Regarding the limitation “deploy the physical design to the robotic device,” the Examiner submits that this is simply an “apply it” step, wherein the limitation merely recites instructions to implement the abstract ideas of the claim on a computer, with nothing more.
Thus, for the additional elements of claim 1 analyzed individually, there is insufficient
reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications.
Furthermore, looking at the additional elements with respect to the whole claim, do not add
any more reasoning as to why the additional elements justify a practical application. Taken as a
whole, the additional elements recite generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them, the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, and mere “apply it” steps, without anything more to overcome this. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regards to step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 1 does not recite any additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as
described above in step 2A prong II of the 101 analysis.
With regards to the processor and memory, these are simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them, with no special features or structures associated with them recited. Further, regarding the step of receiving a target animation for a character, this is simply the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, without anything else recited to bring it above this. Further, regarding the steps of receiving the initial model of the robotic device and the deploying of the physical design to a physical robot, these are mere “apply it” steps, wherein a practical application is not recited due to the initial model and physical robot being computers/machinery merely used as tools to perform existing processes, without anything else above this recited. Generally applying an exception using generic computing elements, the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, and mere “apply it” steps in this way cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims further are directed toward
additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, “wherein the plurality of configurable joints include respective parameterized characteristics fixed during an animation of the robotic device,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely recites constant variables within the mathematical formula calculated, but not in such a way that would bring the mathematical calculation outside of being an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 3, “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to parameterize a characteristic of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the abstract idea of parameterizing (i.e., determining) characteristics of the joints. Specifically, the specification of the instant application further defines the characteristics of the joints being degrees of freedom pertaining to range of motion constraints of the joints. However, the Examiner submits that humans have the ability to determine how many degrees of freedom particular joints have, all within the mind.
Regarding Claim 4, “wherein the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of a Cartesian joint, a prismatic joint, a cylindrical joint, a revolute joint, a universal joint, or a spherical joint,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply defines particular types of joints the robotic device comprises. However, none of these are above joint configurations that would be above what a human can reasonably perform the abstract ideas of the claim to.
Regarding Claim 5, “wherein the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of an actuated joint or a passive joint,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely further defines the type of joints of the robotic device, but none of these joint types would be above what a human can reasonably perform the abstract ideas of the claim to.
Regarding Claim 6, “wherein the parameterized characteristics comprise at least one of an orientation or position of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely further defines what the variables in the mathematical calculation represent, but solving for neither the orientation nor the position of the joints would be above what a human can reasonably perform within the mind.
Regarding Claim 7, “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to discretize the target animation into a plurality of time intervals,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely recites the abstract idea of discretizing (i.e., dividing a known subject) the target animation into time intervals. Humans have the ability within the mind to split animations into distinct time steps. For example, if a character was to raise a leg to kick, a human can reasonably determine within the mind time0 = initial position, time1 = raise the knee in the vertical direction, time2 = extend the knee in the horizontal direction, and time3 = push the leg forward.
Regarding Claim 8, “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to compare a motion of the robotic device with respect to the target animation at each of the plurality of time intervals, and adjust the kinematic design based on the comparison,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply recites the abstract ideas of comparing and adjusting (i.e., switching the variables for different values), to which both can be performed within the human mind.
Regarding Claim 9, “wherein comparing the motion of the robotic device comprises measuring at least one of a position of at least one of the plurality of actuators or a velocity of at least one of the plurality of actuators,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply defines what parameters being compared against, but neither the position nor the velocity of the actuators represents anything above what a human can reasonably perform within the mind.
Independent Claim 10:
101 Analysis: Step 1
Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claim 10 is directed to a system for designing a robotic device (i.e., a machine), and therefore is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong I
Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is determined to fall under the category of an abstract idea, defined as the following: a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human
activity, and/or mental processes.
Claim 10 recites:
A system for designing a robotic device, comprising a processor configured to:
receive a target animation for a character to be represented by the robotic device;
receive an initial model of the robotic device, the model comprising a plurality of configurable joints and a plurality of actuators;
generate a kinematic design of the robotic device based on the initial model and the target animation;
generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design;
generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters; and
deploy the physical design to the robotic device.
Under the Examiner’s broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrases bolded above in
claim 10 recite mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical calculations and/or mental processes, where the limitations can be performed in the human mind.
With regards to “generate a kinematic design of the robotic device based on the initial model and the target animation,” in the context of this claim is a mathematical concept, wherein mathematical calculations are performed to output a solution to the calculations. As this step of generating the kinematic design of the robotic device is described within Table 3 located within paragraph [0119] of the specification of the instant application, is simply computing mathematical calculations to output an answer, simple enough for a human to perform.
With regards to “generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human generates (i.e., determines, selects, chooses, etc.) parameters based on previously solved mathematical calculations. Humans have the ability, entirely within the mind, to determine parameters/variables for actuators based on known information. For example, if the mathematical calculation outputted that the joint needs to be positioned from coordinate (x0, y0) to coordinate (x1, y1), the human can select input variables to the actuators to move the joints to the desired position, all within the brain.
With regards to “generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters,” in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, where a human generates (i.e., determines, selects, chooses, etc.) parameters to apply to a physical robot based on previously determined parameters. With the knowledge of the control parameters, humans have the ability within the mind to select how to apply them to a physical robot. For example, if it has been determined that a control parameter for an actuator is to drive it at a velocity of 5 rotations per second, a human can reasonably determine to apply that same velocity to a physical robot, all within the mind.
101 Analysis: Step 2A Prong II
Does the claim recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application?
The additional elements of claim 10 do not recite the judicial exception into a practical
application. The additional elements of claim 10, as shown below, are underlined, while the
abstract ideas of the claim are bolded.
Claim 10 recites:
A system for designing a robotic device, comprising a processor configured to:
receive a target animation for a character to be represented by the robotic device;
receive an initial model of the robotic device, the model comprising a plurality of configurable joints and a plurality of actuators;
generate a kinematic design of the robotic device based on the initial model and the target animation;
generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design;
generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters; and
deploy the physical design to the robotic device.
The Examiner has determined that the additional elements of the claim underlined above do not integrate the abstract ideas listed above into a practical application.
Regarding the limitation “comprising a processor configured to,” this is simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them. As the processor is described within the specification and the drawings, fails to disclose any special or unique structures or features of the processor that would recite anything above a generic computing element.
Regarding the limitation “receive a target animation for a character to be represented by the robotic device,” this is simply an insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering, without anything else recited in the limitation above this.
Regarding the limitation “receive an initial model of the robotic device, the model comprising a plurality of configurable joints and a plurality of actuators,” the Examiner submits that the received initial model is simply an “apply it” step, without anything else to bring it above this.
Regarding the limitation “deploy the physical design to the robotic device,” the Examiner submits that this is simply an “apply it” step, wherein the limitation merely recites instructions to implement the abstract ideas of the claim on a computer, with nothing more.
Thus, for the additional elements of claim 10 analyzed individually, there is insufficient
reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications.
Furthermore, looking at the additional elements with respect to the whole claim, do not add
any more reasoning as to why the additional elements justify a practical application. Taken as a
whole, the additional elements recite generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them, the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, and mere “apply it” steps, without anything more to overcome this. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Does the claim recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
With regards to step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 10 does not recite any additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as
described above in step 2A prong II of the 101 analysis.
With regards to the processor, this is simply generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality that merely automate the abstract ideas applied to them, with no special features or structures associated with the processor recited. Further, regarding the step of receiving a target animation for a character, this is simply the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, without anything else recited to bring it above this. Further, regarding the steps of receiving the initial model of the robotic device and the deploying of the physical design to a physical robot, these are mere “apply it” steps, wherein a practical application is not recited due to the initial model and physical robot being computers/machinery merely used as tools to perform existing processes, without anything else above this recited. Generally applying an exception using generic computing elements, the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, and mere “apply it” steps in this way cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 11-18 do not recite further limitations that cause the claim to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims further are directed toward
additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional
additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, dependent claims 11-18 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, “wherein the plurality of configurable joints include respective parameterized characteristics fixed during an animation of the robotic device,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely recites constant variables within the mathematical formula calculated, but not in such a way that would bring the mathematical calculation outside of being an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 12, “wherein the processor is further configured to parameterize a characteristic of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the abstract idea of parameterizing (i.e., determining) characteristics of the joints. Specifically, the specification of the instant application further defines the characteristics of the joints being degrees of freedom pertaining to range of motion constraints of the joints. However, the Examiner submits that humans have the ability to determine how many degrees of freedom particular joints have, all within the mind.
Regarding Claim 13, “wherein the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of a Cartesian joint, a prismatic joint, a cylindrical joint, a revolute joint, a universal joint, or a spherical joint,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply defines particular types of joints the robotic device comprises. However, none of these are above joint configurations that would be above what a human can reasonably perform the abstract ideas of the claim to.
Regarding Claim 14, “wherein the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of an actuated joint or a passive joint,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely further defines the type of joints of the robotic device, but none of these joint types would be above what a human can reasonably perform the abstract ideas of the claim to.
Regarding Claim 15, “wherein the parameterized characteristics of the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of an orientation or position of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely further defines what the variables in the mathematical calculation represent, but solving for neither the orientation nor the position of the joints would be above what a human can reasonably perform within the mind.
Regarding Claim 16, “wherein the processor is further configured to discretize the target animation into a plurality of time intervals,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim merely recites the abstract idea of discretizing (i.e., dividing a known subject) the target animation into time intervals. Humans have the ability within the mind to split animations into distinct time steps. For example, if a character was to raise a leg to kick, a human can reasonably determine within the mind time0 = initial position, time1 = raise the knee in the vertical direction, time2 = extend the knee in the horizontal direction, and time3 = push the leg forward.
Regarding Claim 17, “wherein the processor is further configured to compare a motion of the robotic device with respect to the target animation at each of the plurality of time intervals, and adjust the kinematic design based on the comparison,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply recites the abstract ideas of comparing and adjusting (i.e., switching the variables for different values), to which both can be performed within the human mind.
Regarding Claim 18, “wherein comparing the motion of the robotic device comprises measuring at least one of a position of at least one of the plurality of actuators or a velocity of at least one of the plurality of actuators,” the dependent claim does not recite any additional elements that are significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim simply defines what parameters being compared against, but neither the position nor the velocity of the actuators represents anything above what a human can reasonably perform within the mind.
In conclusion, as explained above, claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as ineligible subject matter related to an abstract idea, with insignificant additional elements to overcome the judiciary exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 10, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara et al. (US 20180236657 A1 hereinafter Kuwahara) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20220152822 A1 hereinafter Nguyen).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuwahara teaches a computer-implemented method for designing a robotic device, comprising a processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor ([0082] via “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the main body 110 includes a circuit 150, and the circuit 150 includes one or more processing devices or processors 151, a storage device or storage module 152, and input/output ports 155 and 156.”), ([0083] via “The storage module 152 includes a memory 153 and a storage 154. The storage 154 records programs used to configure each of the above-described functional modules of the main body 110. … The processor 151 executes programs in cooperation with the memory 153, thereby constituting each of the functional modules.”), cause the system to:
receive a target animation for a character to be represented by the robotic device ([0053] via “Returning to FIG. 2, the information acquisition module 120 is configured to obtain at least input information (hereinafter referred to as “first input information”) defining a start position and an end position of the operation of the robot 10. … The “end position” includes a position of the distal end portion 16 at the end of operation and the posture of the robot 10 when the distal end portion 16 is arranged at the position.”);
receive an initial model of the robotic device ([0053] via “Returning to FIG. 2, the information acquisition module 120 is configured to obtain at least input information (hereinafter referred to as “first input information”) defining a start position and an end position of the operation of the robot 10. The “start position” includes a position of the distal end portion 16 at the start of the operation and the posture of the robot 10 (that is, the angles of the joints J1 to J6) when the distal end portion 16 is arranged at the position.”), ([0113] via “Next, the robot simulator 100 executes step S22. In step S22, the start-end position setting module 132 obtains the information related to the above-described specified job from the job storage module 112, and determines the start position and the end position of the section as a path generation target based on the obtained information.”), ([0114] via “Next, the robot simulator 100 executes step S23. In step S23, the path generation module 133 obtains the information related to the start position and the end position from the start-end position setting module 132, and obtains model information from the model storage module 111.”), (Note: See Figures 10 and 11 of Kuwahara as well.), the model comprising a plurality of configurable joints and a plurality of actuators ([0027] via “The robot 10 includes a base 11, a rotating portion 12, a first arm 13, a second arm 14, a third arm 15, a distal end portion 16, and actuators 21 to 26.”), ([0033] via “Each of the actuators 21 to 26 drives each of the joints J1 to J6 respectively using an electric motor as a power source, for example. Specifically, the actuator 21 rotates the rotating portion 12 about the axis Ax1, the actuator 22 swings the first arm 13 about the axis Ax2, the actuator 23 swings the second arm 14 about the axis Ax3, the actuator 24 rotates the distal end portion of the second arm 14 about the axis Ax4, the actuator 25 swings the third arm 15 about the axis Ax5, and the actuator 26 rotates the distal end portion 16 about the axis Ax6.”); and
generate a kinematic design of the robotic device based on the initial model and the target animation ([0060] via “The information processing module 130 is configured to execute generation of a path for moving the distal end portion 16 from the start position to the end position while avoiding a collision between the robot 10 and the obstacle based on the first input information and the model information and execute generation of image data including an illustration of the obstacle and an index indicating the via-point of the path.”), (Note: See Kuwahara paragraphs [0068] – [0069] as well.).
Kuwahara is silent on to: generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design; generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters; and deploy the physical design to the robotic device.
However, Nguyen teaches to generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design ([0012] via “The method first moves the end of the robot arm from its initial position to the target position and measures the elastic distortions caused by that movement. The method then iteratively reconfigures the links and joints of the robot arm to reduce distortions while keeping the end of the robot arm at the target position until the total distortion of the whole system is reduced to zero or near zero. In each iteration, the method reconfigures a small set of adjacent links and joints and utilizes different options to find link and joint configurations that reduce the distortions.”), ([0029] via “Using a distortion measurement such as the one described above, the new method solves the inverse kinematics problem of a simulated elastic robot arm by distorting the robot arm to move its end to the desired target location and iteratively reducing distortions by adjusting the link and joint configurations until the robot arm is free of distortions.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the configurations of the robot arm of Nguyen as the control parameters.);
generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters ([0029] via “Using a distortion measurement such as the one described above, the new method solves the inverse kinematics problem of a simulated elastic robot arm by distorting the robot arm to move its end to the desired target location and iteratively reducing distortions by adjusting the link and joint configurations until the robot arm is free of distortions.”), ([0032] via “After step 2 completes adjusting links L5 to L2, step 3 of the algorithm adjusts link L.sub.1 to reduce the distortions of link L.sub.1 and its neighbor links and joints while ensuring that L.sub.1 is properly attached to the base of the robot arm. … The algorithm then repeats steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 until the total distortion of the system is close to zero within a margin of error. The resulting link and joint configurations of the simulated elastic robot arm then can be used for the actual robot arm to reach similar target position.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the deployment of the same configurations of the simulated robot arm of Nguyen to the actual robot arm as the physical design.); and
deploy the physical design to the robotic device ([0032] via “The resulting link and joint configurations of the simulated elastic robot arm then can be used for the actual robot arm to reach similar target position.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nguyen wherein the system is caused to: generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design; generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters; and deploy the physical design to the robotic device. Doing so incorporates a method to calculate a movement of a robot from a starting position to a target position that is smooth and natural in articulation, in addition to being fast in computation, as stated by Nguyen ([0014] via “Because of its imitation of elasticity physics, the method can provide solutions that have smooth and natural robot movements. The method is fast as it involves only a small set of adjacent links and joints in each iteration, unlike other numerical methods which requires optimizing large numbers of parameters of the whole robot arms in each iteration.”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of a Cartesian joint, a prismatic joint, a cylindrical joint, a revolute joint, a universal joint, or a spherical joint ([0029] via “The first arm 13 is connected to the rotating portion 12 and is swingable about an axis Ax2 orthogonal to the axis Ax1. Being orthogonal involves crossing away from or over one another like an overpass. Hereinafter, a connecting portion between the rotating portion 12 and the first arm 13 will be referred to as “joint J2”, and a swing angle of the first arm 13 with respect to the rotating portion 12 will be referred to as an “angle of the joint J2”.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Kuwahara as well, specifically, to the joint rotation axes Ax1-Ax6. The Examiner interprets these joints comprising at least a revolute joint.).
Regarding Claim 5, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of an actuated joint or a passive joint ([0027] via “The robot 10 includes a base 11, a rotating portion 12, a first arm 13, a second arm 14, a third arm 15, a distal end portion 16, and actuators 21 to 26.”), ([0033] via “Each of the actuators 21 to 26 drives each of the joints J1 to J6 respectively using an electric motor as a power source, for example. Specifically, the actuator 21 rotates the rotating portion 12 about the axis Ax1, the actuator 22 swings the first arm 13 about the axis Ax2, the actuator 23 swings the second arm 14 about the axis Ax3, the actuator 24 rotates the distal end portion of the second arm 14 about the axis Ax4, the actuator 25 swings the third arm 15 about the axis Ax5, and the actuator 26 rotates the distal end portion 16 about the axis Ax6.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kuwahara teaches a system for designing a robotic device, comprising a processor ([0082] via “As illustrated in FIG. 5, the main body 110 includes a circuit 150, and the circuit 150 includes one or more processing devices or processors 151, a storage device or storage module 152, and input/output ports 155 and 156.”) configured to:
receive a target animation for a character to be represented by the robotic device ([0053] via “Returning to FIG. 2, the information acquisition module 120 is configured to obtain at least input information (hereinafter referred to as “first input information”) defining a start position and an end position of the operation of the robot 10. … The “end position” includes a position of the distal end portion 16 at the end of operation and the posture of the robot 10 when the distal end portion 16 is arranged at the position.”);
receive an initial model of the robotic device ([0053] via “Returning to FIG. 2, the information acquisition module 120 is configured to obtain at least input information (hereinafter referred to as “first input information”) defining a start position and an end position of the operation of the robot 10. The “start position” includes a position of the distal end portion 16 at the start of the operation and the posture of the robot 10 (that is, the angles of the joints J1 to J6) when the distal end portion 16 is arranged at the position.”), ([0113] via “Next, the robot simulator 100 executes step S22. In step S22, the start-end position setting module 132 obtains the information related to the above-described specified job from the job storage module 112, and determines the start position and the end position of the section as a path generation target based on the obtained information.”), ([0114] via “Next, the robot simulator 100 executes step S23. In step S23, the path generation module
133 obtains the information related to the start position and the end position from the start-end position setting module 132, and obtains model information from the model storage module 111.”), (Note: See Figures 10 and 11 of Kuwahara as well.), the model comprising a plurality of configurable joints and a plurality of actuators ([0027] via “The robot 10 includes a base 11, a rotating portion 12, a first arm 13, a second arm 14, a third arm 15, a distal end portion 16, and actuators 21 to 26.”), ([0033] via “Each of the actuators 21 to 26 drives each of the joints J1 to J6 respectively using an electric motor as a power source, for example. Specifically, the actuator 21 rotates the rotating portion 12 about the axis Ax1, the actuator 22 swings the first arm 13 about the axis Ax2, the actuator 23 swings the second arm 14
about the axis Ax3, the actuator 24 rotates the distal end portion of the second arm 14 about the axis Ax4, the actuator 25 swings the third arm 15 about the axis Ax5, and the actuator 26
rotates the distal end portion 16 about the axis Ax6.”); and
generate a kinematic design of the robotic device based on the initial model and the target animation ([0060] via “The information processing module 130 is configured to execute generation of a path for moving the distal end portion 16 from the start position to the end position while avoiding a collision between the robot 10 and the obstacle based on the first input information and the model information and execute generation of image data including an illustration of the obstacle and an index indicating the via-point of the path.”), (Note: See Kuwahara [0068] – [0069] as well.).
Kuwahara is silent on wherein the processor is configured to: generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design; generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters; and deploy the physical design to the robotic device.
However, Nguyen teaches to generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design ([0012] via “The method first moves the end of the robot arm from its initial position to the target position and measures the elastic distortions caused by that movement. The method then iteratively reconfigures the links and joints of the robot arm to reduce distortions while keeping the end of the robot arm at the target position until the total distortion of the whole system is reduced to zero or near zero. In each iteration, the method reconfigures a small set of adjacent links and joints and utilizes different options to find link and joint configurations that reduce the distortions.”), ([0029] via “Using a distortion measurement such as the one described above, the new method solves the inverse kinematics problem of a simulated elastic robot arm by distorting the robot arm to move its end to the desired target location and iteratively reducing distortions by adjusting the link and joint configurations until the robot arm is free of distortions.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the configurations of the robot arm of Nguyen as the control parameters.);
generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters ([0029] via “Using a distortion measurement such as the one described above, the new method solves the inverse kinematics problem of a simulated elastic robot arm by distorting the robot arm to move its end to the desired target location and iteratively reducing distortions by adjusting the link and joint configurations until the robot arm is free of distortions.”), ([0032] via “After step 2 completes adjusting links L5 to L2, step 3 of the algorithm adjusts link L.sub.1 to reduce the distortions of link L.sub.1 and its neighbor links and joints while ensuring that L.sub.1 is properly attached to the base of the robot arm. … The algorithm then repeats steps 2, 3, 4, and 5 until the total distortion of the system is close to zero within a margin of error. The resulting link and joint configurations of the simulated elastic robot arm then can be used for the actual robot arm to reach similar target position.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the deployment of the same configurations of the simulated robot arm of Nguyen to the actual robot arm as the physical design.); and
deploy the physical design to the robotic device ([0032] via “The resulting link and joint configurations of the simulated elastic robot arm then can be used for the actual robot arm to reach similar target position.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Nguyen wherein the processor is configured to: generate control parameters for the plurality of actuators based on the kinematic design; generate a physical design for the robotic device based on the kinematic design and the control parameters; and deploy the physical design to the robotic device. Doing so incorporates a method to calculate a movement of a robot from a starting position to a target position that is smooth and natural in articulation, in addition to being fast in computation, as stated by Nguyen ([0014] via “Because of its imitation of elasticity physics, the method can provide solutions that have smooth and natural robot movements. The method is fast as it involves only a small set of adjacent links and joints in each iteration, unlike other numerical methods which requires optimizing large numbers of parameters of the whole robot arms in each iteration.”).
Regarding Claim 13, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of a Cartesian joint, a prismatic joint, a cylindrical joint, a revolute joint, a universal joint, or a spherical joint ([0029] via “The first arm 13 is connected to the rotating portion 12 and is swingable about an axis Ax2 orthogonal to the axis Ax1. Being orthogonal involves crossing away from or over one another like an overpass. Hereinafter, a connecting portion between the rotating portion 12
and the first arm 13 will be referred to as “joint J2”, and a swing angle of the first arm 13 with respect to the rotating portion 12 will be referred to as an “angle of the joint J2”.”), (Note: See Figure 1 of Kuwahara as well, specifically, to the joint rotation axes Ax1-Ax6. The Examiner interprets these joints comprising at least a revolute joint.).
Regarding Claim 14, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of an actuated joint or a passive joint ([0027] via “The robot 10 includes a base 11, a rotating portion 12, a first arm 13, a second arm 14, a third arm 15, a distal end portion 16, and actuators 21 to 26.”), ([0033] via “Each of the actuators 21 to 26 drives each of the joints J1 to J6 respectively using an electric motor as a power source, for example. Specifically, the actuator 21 rotates the rotating portion 12 about the axis Ax1, the actuator 22 swings the first arm 13 about the axis Ax2, the actuator 23 swings the second arm 14 about the axis Ax3, the actuator 24 rotates the distal end portion of the second arm 14 about the axis Ax4, the actuator 25 swings the third arm 15 about the axis Ax5, and the actuator 26 rotates the distal end portion 16 about the axis Ax6.”).
9. Claim(s) 2, 6, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara et al. (US 20180236657 A1 hereinafter Kuwahara) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20220152822 A1 hereinafter Nguyen), and further in view of Tao et al. (US 6064168 A hereinafter Tao).
Regarding Claim 2, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the plurality of configurable joints include respective parameterized characteristics fixed during an animation of the robotic device.
However, Tao teaches wherein the plurality of configurable joints include respective parameterized characteristics fixed during an animation of the robotic device (Col. 7 lines 14-19, where “Preferably, the angle 6 is fixed so that a unique wrist angle solution is obtained by solving for angles 4 and 5 through inverse kinematics. With angle 6 being fixed, it becomes possible to determine a set of equations that describe the tool center point in terms of angles 4 and 5 only. Such equations provide a unique solution for the wrist axis positions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tao wherein the plurality of configurable joints include respective parameterized characteristics fixed during an animation of the robotic device. Doing so speeds up the calculation of the control parameters by reducing the amount of possible joint orientations, as stated by Tao (Col. 7 lines 6-13, where “The preferred embodiment includes fixing one of the axes so that the wrist 40 moves only along two joints of the three axes. By fixing the angle along one of the axes, a unique solution exists for the position of the wrist components relative to the two remaining axes. Since there is a unique solution, the inverse kinematics determination is accomplished more quickly and readily since there is no decision to be made by the controller 54 regarding a plurality of possible wrist orientations.”).
Regarding Claim 6, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 2, but is silent on wherein the parameterized characteristics comprise at least one of an orientation or position of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints.
However, Tao teaches wherein the parameterized characteristics comprise at least one of an orientation or position of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints (Col. 7 lines 14-19, where “Preferably, the angle 6 is fixed so that a unique wrist angle solution is obtained by solving for angles 4 and 5 through inverse kinematics. With angle 6 being fixed, it becomes possible to determine a set of equations that describe the tool center point in terms of angles 4 and 5 only. Such equations provide a unique solution for the wrist axis positions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tao wherein the parameterized characteristics comprise at least one of an orientation or position of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints. Doing so speeds up the calculation of the control parameters by reducing the amount of possible joint orientations, as stated by Tao (Col. 7 lines 6-13, where “The preferred embodiment includes fixing one of the axes so that the wrist 40 moves only along two joints of the three axes. By fixing the angle along one of the axes, a unique solution exists for the position of the wrist components relative to the two remaining axes. Since there is a unique solution, the inverse kinematics determination is accomplished more quickly and readily since there is no decision to be made by the controller 54 regarding a plurality of possible wrist orientations.”).
Regarding Claim 11, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the system of claim 10, but is silent on wherein the plurality of configurable joints include respective parameterized characteristics fixed during an animation of the robotic device.
However, Tao teaches wherein the plurality of configurable joints include respective parameterized characteristics fixed during an animation of the robotic device (Col. 7 lines 14-19, where “Preferably, the angle 6 is fixed so that a unique wrist angle solution is obtained by solving for angles 4 and 5 through inverse kinematics. With angle 6 being fixed, it becomes possible to determine a set of equations that describe the tool center point in terms of angles 4 and 5 only. Such equations provide a unique solution for the wrist axis positions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tao wherein the plurality of configurable joints include respective parameterized characteristics fixed during an animation of the robotic device. Doing so speeds up the calculation of the control parameters by reducing the amount of possible joint orientations, as stated by Tao (Col. 7 lines 6-13, where “The preferred embodiment includes fixing one of the axes so that the wrist 40 moves only along two joints of the three axes. By fixing the angle along one of the axes, a unique solution exists for the position of the wrist components relative to the two remaining axes. Since there is a unique solution, the inverse kinematics determination is accomplished more quickly and readily since there is no decision to be made by the controller 54 regarding a plurality of possible wrist orientations.”).
Regarding Claim 15, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the system of claim 11, but is silent on wherein the parameterized characteristics of the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of an orientation or position of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints.
However, Tao teaches wherein the parameterized characteristics of the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of an orientation or position of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints (Col. 7 lines 14-19, where “Preferably, the angle 6 is fixed so that a unique wrist angle solution is obtained by solving for angles 4 and 5 through inverse kinematics. With angle 6 being fixed, it becomes possible to determine a set of equations that describe the tool center point in terms of angles 4 and 5 only. Such equations provide a unique solution for the wrist axis positions.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tao wherein the parameterized characteristics of the plurality of configurable joints comprises at least one of an orientation or position of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints. Doing so speeds up the calculation of the control parameters by reducing the amount of possible joint orientations, as stated by Tao (Col. 7 lines 6-13, where “The preferred embodiment includes fixing one of the axes so that the wrist 40 moves only along two joints of the three axes. By fixing the angle along one of the axes, a unique solution exists for the position of the wrist components relative to the two remaining axes. Since there is a unique solution, the inverse kinematics determination is accomplished more quickly and readily since there is no decision to be made by the controller 54 regarding a plurality of possible wrist orientations.”).
10. Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara et al. (US 20180236657 A1 hereinafter Kuwahara) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20220152822 A1 hereinafter Nguyen), and further in view of Rabindran et al. (US 20250143819 A1 hereinafter Rabindran).
Regarding Claim 3, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to parameterize a characteristic of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints.
However, Rabindran teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to parameterize a characteristic of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints ([0078] via “As shown, method 600 begins at process 602, where one or more constraints are determined for joints of a repositionable structure system that can move a portion of a computer-assisted system in a direction of interest to be partitioned. Constraints can be determined for any number of joints belonging to any number of joint sets. … In some embodiments, the constraints can include hardware-based constraints, environment-based constraints, kinematics-based constraints, and/or dynamics-based constraints. The hardware-based constraints can relate to physical limits of a repositionable structure system, such as range of motion (ROM) limits of joints of the repositionable structure system.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the determining of the range of motion limits of the joints as parameterizing a characteristic of the joints, as this process is described within paragraphs [0046], [0059], and [0083] of the specification of the instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rabindran wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to parameterize a characteristic of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints. Doing so applies constrained parameters to the joints such that only feasible solutions of the control parameters are solved for, as stated by Rabindran ([0080] via “At process 604, a feasible solution space is determined based on an intersection of the constraint surfaces for DOFs associated with the joints. In some embodiments, the feasible solution space includes all of the DOFs/joints participating in the direction of interest.”).
Regarding Claim 12, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the system of claim 10, but is silent on wherein the processor is further configured to parameterize a characteristic of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints.
However, Rabindran teaches wherein the processor is further configured to parameterize a characteristic of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints ([0078] via “As shown, method 600 begins at process 602, where one or more constraints are determined for joints of a repositionable structure system that can move a portion of a computer-assisted system in a direction of interest to be partitioned. Constraints can be determined for any number of joints belonging to any number of joint sets. … In some embodiments, the constraints can include hardware-based constraints, environment-based constraints, kinematics-based constraints, and/or dynamics-based constraints. The hardware-based constraints can relate to physical limits of a repositionable structure system, such as range of motion (ROM) limits of joints of the repositionable structure system.”), (Note: The Examiner interprets the determining of the range of motion limits of the joints as parameterizing a characteristic of the joints, as this process is described within paragraphs [0046], [0059], and [0083] of the specification of the instant application.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rabindran wherein the processor is further configured to parameterize a characteristic of at least one of the plurality of configurable joints. Doing so applies constrained parameters to the joints such that only feasible solutions of the control parameters are solved for, as stated by Rabindran ([0080] via “At process 604, a feasible solution space is determined based on an intersection of the constraint surfaces for DOFs associated with the joints. In some embodiments, the feasible solution space includes all of the DOFs/joints participating in the direction of interest.”).
11. Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara et al. (US 20180236657 A1 hereinafter Kuwahara) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20220152822 A1 hereinafter Nguyen), and further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 20240300098 A1 hereinafter Ishikawa).
Regarding Claim 7, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to discretize the target animation into a plurality of time intervals.
However, Ishikawa teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to discretize the target animation into a plurality of time intervals ([0047] via “A teaching program generation unit 106 divides time-series data (sequence) of a teaching pose at the timing when it is detected that the grasping target object (first grasping target object) grasped by the teacher 11 is positioned during the teaching work by the teacher 11, and stores the data as a partial sequence of the teaching pose. At the timing when the grasping motion for the first grasping target object and the functional operation for the first grasping target object are detected, the motions are stored as the motions for the first grasping target object, and then at the timing when the work state confirmation is detected, the confirmation is stored as the work state confirming motion.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to discretize the target animation into a plurality of time intervals. Doing so synchronizes the motion of the received target animation to the kinematic design of the robot performing the target animation, as stated by Ishikawa ([0033] via “Based on the pieces of information, a command that converts the partial sequences of the teaching pose into a sequence of robot joint displacements and executes the sequences so that the position and posture of the grasping target object grasped by the robot are similar to those of the teaching pose included in the partial sequences of the teaching pose, …. By executing the teaching program for the robot generated here, a robot was made to execute a series of tasks in the same manner as the tasks demonstrated by the teacher.”).
Regarding Claim 16, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the system of claim 10, but is silent on wherein the processor is further configured to discretize the target animation into a plurality of time intervals.
However, Ishikawa teaches wherein the processor is further configured to discretize the target animation into a plurality of time intervals ([0047] via “A teaching program generation unit 106 divides time-series data (sequence) of a teaching pose at the timing when it is detected that the grasping target object (first grasping target object) grasped by the teacher 11 is positioned during the teaching work by the teacher 11, and stores the data as a partial sequence of the teaching pose. At the timing when the grasping motion for the first grasping target object and the functional operation for the first grasping target object are detected, the motions are stored as the motions for the first grasping target object, and then at the timing when the work state confirmation is detected, the confirmation is stored as the work state confirming motion.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ishikawa wherein the processor is further configured to discretize the target animation into a plurality of time intervals. Doing so synchronizes the motion of the received target animation to the kinematic design of the robot performing the target animation, as stated by Ishikawa ([0033] via “Based on the pieces of information, a command that converts the partial sequences of the teaching pose into a sequence of robot joint displacements and executes the sequences so that the position and posture of the grasping target object grasped by the robot are similar to those of the teaching pose included in the partial sequences of the teaching pose, …. By executing the teaching program for the robot generated here, a robot was made to execute a series of tasks in the same manner as the tasks demonstrated by the teacher.”).
12. Claim(s) 8, 9, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwahara et al. (US 20180236657 A1 hereinafter Kuwahara) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20220152822 A1 hereinafter Nguyen), further in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 20240300098 A1 hereinafter Ishikawa), and further in view of Pecher (US 20120197573 A1 hereinafter Pecher).
Regarding Claim 8, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, but is silent on wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to compare a motion of the robotic device with respect to the target animation at each of the plurality of time intervals, and adjust the kinematic design based on the comparison.
However, Pecher teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to compare a motion of the robotic device with respect to the target animation at each of the plurality of time intervals ([0063] via “During the entire process of closing the gripping or tong tool, the current position data of the gripping or tong tool and the tracking error of the gripping or tong tool are determined and stored at intervals, in particular at cyclical intervals, i.e., for example in predetermined position steps or time steps. The tracking error corresponds in this case, as described earlier, to the difference between the target position and the actual position of the gripping or tong tool.”), and
adjust the kinematic design based on the comparison ([0064] via “As soon as the torque limit has been reached and the gripper arms of the welding tongs are touching and the predetermined welding force has been built up, it is possible to reach conclusions about the contact point 50 or the adjustment position of the gripping or tong tool from the stored tracking error values, which for example rise uniformly at a constant target speed, after the contact point has been passed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pecher wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor cause the processor to compare a motion of the robotic device with respect to the target animation at each of the plurality of time intervals, and adjust the kinematic design based on the comparison. Doing so simplifies the calculation of parameters during the comparison between the target and actual positions of the robot, as stated by Pecher ([0071] via “By storing, in particular time-synchronously, the position data and the tracking error data of the gripping or tong tool, in this case for example the welding tongs, the contact position 50 can also be calculated in a simple way.”).
Regarding Claim 9, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, but is silent on wherein comparing the motion of the robotic device comprises measuring at least one of a position of at least one of the plurality of actuators or a velocity of at least one of the plurality of actuators.
However, Pecher teaches wherein comparing the motion of the robotic device comprises measuring at least one of a position of at least one of the plurality of actuators or a velocity of at least one of the plurality of actuators ([0023] via “In all embodiments of the method, the multiple determination of the actual positions of the at least one drive and/or of the tracking error values of the electric-motor-actuated drive can be done in predefined, in particular constant position steps and/or time steps. All actual positions, tracking error values and time values can be stored, in particular saved or stored in a controller of the production gripper.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pecher wherein comparing the motion of the robotic device comprises measuring at least one of a position of at least one of the plurality of actuators or a velocity of at least one of the plurality of actuators. Doing so simplifies the calculation of parameters during the comparison between the target and actual positions of the robot, as stated by Pecher ([0071] via “By storing, in particular time-synchronously, the position data and the tracking error data of the gripping or tong tool, in this case for example the welding tongs, the contact position 50 can also be calculated in a simple way.”).
Regarding Claim 17, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the system of claim 16, but is silent on wherein the processor is further configured to compare a motion of the robotic device with respect to the target animation at each of the plurality of time intervals, and adjust the kinematic design based on the comparison.
However, Pecher teaches wherein the processor is further configured to compare a motion of the robotic device with respect to the target animation at each of the plurality of time intervals ([0063] via “During the entire process of closing the gripping or tong tool, the current position data of the gripping or tong tool and the tracking error of the gripping or tong tool are determined and stored at intervals, in particular at cyclical intervals, i.e., for example in predetermined position steps or time steps. The tracking error corresponds in this case, as described earlier, to the difference between the target position and the actual position of the gripping or tong tool.”), and
adjust the kinematic design based on the comparison ([0064] via “As soon as the torque limit has been reached and the gripper arms of the welding tongs are touching and the predetermined welding force has been built up, it is possible to reach conclusions about the contact point 50 or the adjustment position of the gripping or tong tool from the stored tracking error values, which for example rise uniformly at a constant target speed, after the contact point has been passed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pecher wherein the processor is further configured to compare a motion of the robotic device with respect to the target animation at each of the plurality of time intervals, and adjust the kinematic design based on the comparison. Doing so simplifies the calculation of parameters during the comparison between the target and actual positions of the robot, as stated by Pecher ([0071] via “By storing, in particular time-synchronously, the position data and the tracking error data of the gripping or tong tool, in this case for example the welding tongs, the contact position 50 can also be calculated in a simple way.”).
Regarding Claim 18, modified reference Kuwahara teaches the system of claim 17, but is silent on wherein comparing the motion of the robotic device comprises measuring at least one of a position of at least one of the plurality of actuators or a velocity of at least one of the plurality of actuators.
However, Pecher teaches wherein comparing the motion of the robotic device comprises measuring at least one of a position of at least one of the plurality of actuators or a velocity of at least one of the plurality of actuators ([0023] via “In all embodiments of the method, the multiple determination of the actual positions of the at least one drive and/or of the tracking error values of the electric-motor-actuated drive can be done in predefined, in particular constant position steps and/or time steps. All actual positions, tracking error values and time values can be stored, in particular saved or stored in a controller of the production gripper.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Pecher wherein comparing the motion of the robotic device comprises measuring at least one of a position of at least one of the plurality of actuators or a velocity of at least one of the plurality of actuators. Doing so simplifies the calculation of parameters during the comparison between the target and actual positions of the robot, as stated by Pecher ([0071] via “By storing, in particular time-synchronously, the position data and the tracking error data of the gripping or tong tool, in this case for example the welding tongs, the contact position 50 can also be calculated in a simple way.”).
Examiner’s Note
13. The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the
references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the
specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific
limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is
respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references
in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the
context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP
2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole,
including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing
using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is
encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. The fax phone number for the
organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be
obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available
to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit:
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for
more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for
information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657