DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takenaka et al. (US6969965, referred to as Takenaka).
Regarding claim 1: Takenaka discloses: A system for a legged robot limb controller for position tracking with base wrench limiting, said system comprising: a robot comprising a robot base and one or more legs attached to said robot base, wherein said robot is controlled via an algorithm, wherein said algorithm automatically creates desired limits on a plurality of forces based on a configuration of said one or more legs. ([Fig. 10] see components in Fig. 10 [col. 89, lines 2-29] the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the determined provisional instantaneous values or the like of the body position/posture, by the use of the full model 100C2. Note that, a configuration is also feasible where the simplified model 100c1 is not included in the full-model correction unit 100c2. The full model 100c2 includes any one of an inverse full model (inverse dynamic full model) and a direct full model (direct dynamic full model), as described later. Basically, the full-model correction unit 100c executes processing (B) to Satisfy the following conditions A1 to A3. In other words, the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the body position/posture of the Simplified models gait determined by using the Simplified model, and outputs the desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance con trol about the desired ZMP, (B), so that (A1) the dynamic equilibrium conditions are Satisfied more accurately than a gait generated based on only the Simplified model (hereinafter, referred to as a simplified models gait) does; (A2) a true ZMP (ZMP which satisfies the original definition, corrected by generating a desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance control about the desired ZMP) exists within the ZMP allowable range (allowable range capable of Sufficiently maintaining the Stability margin); and (A3) the floor reaction force's horizontal component remains within the floor reaction force's horizontal component allowable limit for gait correction.)
Regarding claim 2: Takenaka discloses: The system of claim 1,
Takenaka further discloses: wherein said algorithm performs a method comprising: computing a consistent reference acceleration; inputting said consistent reference acceleration into an inverse dynamics controller; obtaining, from said inverse dynamics controller, a plurality of feedforward torques configured to produce said consistent reference acceleration based on a dynamics model; computing, via a feedback wrench controller in an end-effector task coordinate, a feedback wrench with a desired stiffness in a secondary end-effector coordinate; comparing an arm acceleration to a dynamics model of said arm; computing an estimated external force based on said comparison; running a contact estimation algorithm using said estimated external force and a current arm twist in a frame; setting a contact state based on a preset threshold; feeding a linear force component of said feedback wrench into an applied force limiting algorithm; computing a projected allowable applied force based on a stability of said robot base; modifying said feedback wrench based on a comparison of said projected allowable applied force and said linear force component of said feedback wrench; producing a feedback torque via converting said modified feedback wrench to joint coordinates using a limb Jacobian; and applying said torque to at least one arm joint. ([col. 51, lines 44-56] in order to improve accuracy of dynamic calculation, it is favorable that, after the body angular acceleration B is obtained in the above manner, the body horizontal acceleration C. of the body translation mode be analytically or Searchingly determined by the use of a more rigorous dynamic model So that a movement, obtained by combining the body translation mode and body rotation mode producing the body angular acceleration B obtained above, satisfies the desired ZMP. A searching decision method may be as follows: determining the next candidate by pseudo-Newton's method and the like after obtaining Affine-Jacobian (sensitivity matrix). [col. 89, lines 2-29] the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the determined provisional instantaneous values or the like of the body position/posture, by the use of the full model 100C2. Note that, a configuration is also feasible where the simplified model 100c1 is not included in the full-model correction unit 100c2. The full model 100c2 includes any one of an inverse full model (inverse dynamic full model) and a direct full model (direct dynamic full model), as described later. Basically, the full-model correction unit 100c executes processing (B) to Satisfy the following conditions A1 to A3. In other words, the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the body position/posture of the Simplified models gait determined by using the Simplified model, and outputs the desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance con trol about the desired ZMP, (B), so that (A1) the dynamic equilibrium conditions are Satisfied more accurately than a gait generated based on only the Simplified model (hereinafter, referred to as a simplified models gait) does; (A2) a true ZMP (ZMP which satisfies the original definition, corrected by generating a desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance control about the desired ZMP) exists within the ZMP allowable range (allowable range capable of Sufficiently maintaining the Stability margin); and (A3) the floor reaction force's horizontal component remains within the floor reaction force's horizontal component allowable limit for gait correction. [col. 94, lines 14-19] The foregoing body translation mode floor reaction force ratioh, which is a ratio between AMp and AFp generated by the body horizontal acceleration, is a ratio between a term generated by the body horizontal acceleration (that is, the second term) on the right side of Equation a12, and Equation a13.)
Regarding claim 3: Takenaka discloses: The system of claim 1,
Takenaka further discloses: wherein said algorithm automatically creates desired limits on a plurality of forces based on a configuration of said one or more legs to cause said robot to interact with a target object. ([col. 51, lines 44-56] in order to improve accuracy of dynamic calculation, it is favorable that, after the body angular acceleration B is obtained in the above manner, the body horizontal acceleration C. of the body translation mode be analytically or Searchingly determined by the use of a more rigorous dynamic model So that a movement, obtained by combining the body translation mode and body rotation mode producing the body angular acceleration B obtained above, satisfies the desired ZMP. A searching decision method may be as follows: determining the next candidate by pseudo-Newton's method and the like after obtaining Affine-Jacobian (sensitivity matrix). [col. 89, lines 2-29] the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the determined provisional instantaneous values or the like of the body position/posture, by the use of the full model 100C2. Note that, a configuration is also feasible where the simplified model 100c1 is not included in the full-model correction unit 100c2. The full model 100c2 includes any one of an inverse full model (inverse dynamic full model) and a direct full model (direct dynamic full model), as described later. Basically, the full-model correction unit 100c executes processing (B) to Satisfy the following conditions A1 to A3. In other words, the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the body position/posture of the Simplified models gait determined by using the Simplified model, and outputs the desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance con trol about the desired ZMP, (B), so that (A1) the dynamic equilibrium conditions are Satisfied more accurately than a gait generated based on only the Simplified model (hereinafter, referred to as a simplified models gait) does; (A2) a true ZMP (ZMP which satisfies the original definition, corrected by generating a desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance control about the desired ZMP) exists within the ZMP allowable range (allowable range capable of Sufficiently maintaining the Stability margin); and (A3) the floor reaction force's horizontal component remains within the floor reaction force's horizontal component allowable limit for gait correction. [col. 94, lines 14-19] The foregoing body translation mode floor reaction force ratioh, which is a ratio between AMp and AFp generated by the body horizontal acceleration, is a ratio between a term generated by the body horizontal acceleration (that is, the second term) on the right side of Equation a12, and Equation a13.)
Regarding claim 4: Takenaka discloses: The system of claim 1,
Takenaka further discloses: wherein said algorithm automatically creates desired limits on a plurality of forces based on a configuration of said one or more legs to cause said robot to navigate a specified area. ([col. 51, lines 44-56] in order to improve accuracy of dynamic calculation, it is favorable that, after the body angular acceleration B is obtained in the above manner, the body horizontal acceleration C. of the body translation mode be analytically or Searchingly determined by the use of a more rigorous dynamic model So that a movement, obtained by combining the body translation mode and body rotation mode producing the body angular acceleration B obtained above, satisfies the desired ZMP. A searching decision method may be as follows: determining the next candidate by pseudo-Newton's method and the like after obtaining Affine-Jacobian (sensitivity matrix). [col. 89, lines 2-29] the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the determined provisional instantaneous values or the like of the body position/posture, by the use of the full model 100C2. Note that, a configuration is also feasible where the simplified model 100c1 is not included in the full-model correction unit 100c2. The full model 100c2 includes any one of an inverse full model (inverse dynamic full model) and a direct full model (direct dynamic full model), as described later. Basically, the full-model correction unit 100c executes processing (B) to Satisfy the following conditions A1 to A3. In other words, the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the body position/posture of the Simplified models gait determined by using the Simplified model, and outputs the desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance con trol about the desired ZMP, (B), so that (A1) the dynamic equilibrium conditions are Satisfied more accurately than a gait generated based on only the Simplified model (hereinafter, referred to as a simplified models gait) does; (A2) a true ZMP (ZMP which satisfies the original definition, corrected by generating a desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance control about the desired ZMP) exists within the ZMP allowable range (allowable range capable of Sufficiently maintaining the Stability margin); and (A3) the floor reaction force's horizontal component remains within the floor reaction force's horizontal component allowable limit for gait correction. [col. 94, lines 14-19] The foregoing body translation mode floor reaction force ratioh, which is a ratio between AMp and AFp generated by the body horizontal acceleration, is a ratio between a term generated by the body horizontal acceleration (that is, the second term) on the right side of Equation a12, and Equation a13.)
Regarding claim 5: Takenaka discloses: The system of claim 1,
Takenaka further discloses: wherein said algorithm uses an optimization method followed by an analytical modification of a normal tracking controller. ([col. 43, lines 21-30] A Searching decision method may be as follows. Affinite Jacobian (sensitivity matrix) is obtained and the next can didate is determined by a steepest-descent method. Alternatively, a simplex method can be used. In this embodiment, the Steepest-descent method is used. Next, after S204, in S206, initial body vertical position/ velocity (at time Ts) (Zs, VZs) (Zs: vertical position, VZS: vertical velocity) are determined. In this embodiment, the initial body vertical velocity Vzs is analytically determined in a manner below… [col. 45, lines 43-54] the initial body vertical Velocity Satisfying the initial total center of gravity's vertical velocity obtained above may also be obtained by the use of a more precise model of the robot 1, considering not only the initial States of each foot position/posture and initial total center of gravity's vertical velocity, but also the initial States of arm postures (determined in S200), the provisionally determined initial State of body horizontal position (latest one that is provisionally determined in S202 or later described S21 or later described in S21 or S218), and the initial body vertical position obtained above.)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka et al. (US6969965, referred to as Takenaka) in view of Seraji et al. (US5737500, referred to as Seraji).
Regarding claim 6: Takenaka discloses: The system of claim 1,
Takenaka further discloses: wherein said robot further comprises at least one robotic arm comprising: an arm base; a plurality of arm base actuators; an arm first link; an arm second link; [and an end-effector]. ([Fig. 10] see components in Fig. 10)
Takenaka does not explicitly disclose: [and an end-effector]
Takenaka does not disclose the following limitations, however Seraji, from an analogous field of endeavor, further teaches: and an end effector ([col. 19, lines 32-38] FIG. 14 illustrates the local site interacting with the remote site in a similar fashion as shown in FIG. 11. The remote site sub-system includes the robot with the arm having the integrated sensor/end-effector (ISEE) unit con sisting of two CCD cameras with controlled lights, two infrared triangulation-based proximity sensors, a gas sensor, a temperature sensor, and a gripper)
Takenaka and Seraji are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic MPC. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the legged robotic system disclosed in Takenaka to enable the gripper taught in Seraji.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the legged robotic control system with additional capabilities similar to the capabilities described in Seraji for the purpose of visual tracking alongside MPC for the capability of performing gripper tasks.
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Takenaka and Seraji teaches: The system of claim 6,
Takenaka does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Seraji further discloses: wherein said end-effector is a gripper comprising gripper jaws and at least one gripper camera. ([col. 19, lines 32-38] FIG. 14 illustrates the local site interacting with the remote site in a similar fashion as shown in FIG. 11. The remote site sub-system includes the robot with the arm having the integrated sensor/end-effector (ISEE) unit con sisting of two CCD cameras with controlled lights, two infrared triangulation-based proximity sensors, a gas sensor, a temperature sensor, and a gripper)
As previously stated, Takenaka and Seraji are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic MPC. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the legged robotic system disclosed in Takenaka to enable the gripper and gripper camera taught in Seraji.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the legged robotic control system with additional capabilities similar to the capabilities described in Seraji for the purpose of visual tracking alongside MPC for the purpose of extracting further information for specific tasks and the capability of performing gripper tasks.
Regarding claim 8: Rejected using the same rationale as the combined claims 2 and 6, however further directed to “receiving, via a robot processing unit associated with a robot, an instructional command to move an end-effector at a desired velocity … computing, via an algorithm, reference tracking dynamics from said desired velocity;”, which is further taught by Seraji: receiving, via a robot processing unit associated with a robot, an instructional command to move an end-effector at a desired velocity … computing, via an algorithm, reference tracking dynamics from said desired velocity; ([col. 16, lines 30-35] The joint servo motors can be commanded in any of the four modes: position, velocity, torque, and current. This makes it possible to operate the arm under either kinematic or dynamic control schemes, and therefore provides a testbed for validation of different 7DOF control laws.)
As previously stated, Takenaka and Seraji are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic MPC. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the legged robotic system disclosed in Takenaka to enable the velocity control taught in Seraji.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the legged robotic control system with additional capabilities similar to the capabilities described in Seraji for the purpose of using a common MPC input.
Regarding claim 10: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 11: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 4 and 10.
Regarding claim 12: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 13: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Takenaka and Seraji teaches: The method of claim 8,
Seraji further teaches: wherein said robotic arm has seven degrees of freedom. ([col. 1, lines 29-32] The invention is related to the use of the configuration control method disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,999,553 by one of the inventors herein to the control of seven degree of freedom robot arms, using a kinematic approach.)
Takenaka and Seraji are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic MPC. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the legged robotic system disclosed in Takenaka to enable the seven degree of freedom robotic arm taught in Seraji.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the legged robotic control system with additional capabilities similar to the capabilities described in Seraji for the purpose of combined moving and picking procedures.
Regarding claim 15: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 16: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 7 and 12.
Regarding claim 18: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 4, 10, 11, and 17.
Regarding claim 19: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18.
Regarding claim 20: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 14.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka et al. (US6969965, referred to as Takenaka) in view of Seraji et al. (US5737500, referred to as Seraji), and further in view of Minniti et al. (“Whole Body MPC for a Dynamically Stable Mobile Manipulator”, referred to as Minniti).
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Takenaka and Seraji teaches: The method of claim 8, wherein said algorithm automatically creates desired limits on a plurality of forces based on a configuration of said one or more legs [to cause said robot to open a door.] ([col. 51, lines 44-56] in order to improve accuracy of dynamic calculation, it is favorable that, after the body angular acceleration B is obtained in the above manner, the body horizontal acceleration C. of the body translation mode be analytically or Searchingly determined by the use of a more rigorous dynamic model So that a movement, obtained by combining the body translation mode and body rotation mode producing the body angular acceleration B obtained above, satisfies the desired ZMP. A searching decision method may be as follows: determining the next candidate by pseudo-Newton's method and the like after obtaining Affine-Jacobian (sensitivity matrix). [col. 89, lines 2-29] the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the determined provisional instantaneous values or the like of the body position/posture, by the use of the full model 100C2. Note that, a configuration is also feasible where the simplified model 100c1 is not included in the full-model correction unit 100c2. The full model 100c2 includes any one of an inverse full model (inverse dynamic full model) and a direct full model (direct dynamic full model), as described later. Basically, the full-model correction unit 100c executes processing (B) to Satisfy the following conditions A1 to A3. In other words, the full-model correction unit 100c corrects the body position/posture of the Simplified models gait determined by using the Simplified model, and outputs the desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance con trol about the desired ZMP, (B), so that (A1) the dynamic equilibrium conditions are Satisfied more accurately than a gait generated based on only the Simplified model (hereinafter, referred to as a simplified models gait) does; (A2) a true ZMP (ZMP which satisfies the original definition, corrected by generating a desired floor reaction force's moment for compliance control about the desired ZMP) exists within the ZMP allowable range (allowable range capable of Sufficiently maintaining the Stability margin); and (A3) the floor reaction force's horizontal component remains within the floor reaction force's horizontal component allowable limit for gait correction. [col. 94, lines 14-19] The foregoing body translation mode floor reaction force ratioh, which is a ratio between AMp and AFp generated by the body horizontal acceleration, is a ratio between a term generated by the body horizontal acceleration (that is, the second term) on the right side of Equation a12, and Equation a13.)
The combination of Takenaka and Seraji does not explicitly teach: [to cause said robot to open a door.]
The combination of Takenaka and Seraji does not teach the following limitations, however Minniti, from an analogous field of endeavor, further teaches: to cause said robot to open a door. ([pg. 3693, col. 2, lines 10-12] we want the controller to plan a desired force trajectory at the end-effector in order to push and open a door (see Fig. 1))
Takenaka, Seraji, and Minniti are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic MPC. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the legged robotic system taught in the combination of Takenaka and Seraji to enable the door opening function taught in Minniti.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the door opening method with the method applied to the control system taught in the combination of Takenaka and Seraji.
Regarding claim 17: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658