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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a communication interface configured to communicate with a robot…” in claim 1. The corresponding structure covered by the recited communication interface is disclosed in at least paragraph 0037 of Applicant’s specification filed 29 August 2024. The communication interface has been construed to require any wired or wireless communication pathway and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-23, 28-31 and 36-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,076,866 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘866 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the rejected claims are anticipated by the ‘866 patent.
Regarding claim 21, the ‘866 patent recites a computing system comprising: a communication interface configured to communicate with a robot having a first segment and a second segment movably connected to the first segment by a joint (column 35, lines 25-28); and at least one processing circuit configured, when the computing system is in communication with the robot (column 35, lines 29-31), to perform the following: outputting one or more movement commands for causing relative movement between the first segment and the second segment (column 35, lines 33-36); receiving actuation data associated with the relative movement (column 35, line 38); estimating, based on the actuation data, at least one parameter of the robot (column 35, lines 43-44); and outputting a subsequent one or more movement commands for causing subsequent relative movement between the first segment and the second segment, wherein the subsequent one or more movement commands is generated at least in part based on the at least one parameter (column 35, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 22-23, the ‘866 patent recites the computing system of claim 21, wherein the at least one parameter includes at least one of: (i) a friction parameter estimate associated with friction between the first segment and the second segment, or (ii) a center of mass (CoM) estimate associated with the first segment (column 36, lines 53-56 and column 37, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 28, the ‘866 patent recites the computing system of claim 22, wherein the at least one parameter is a friction parameter estimate of a coefficient of viscous friction, or is an estimate of coulomb friction (column 36, lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 29, the ‘866 patent recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processing circuit of a computing system, cause the at least one processing circuit to perform the [method] comprising (column 38, lines 54-57): outputting one or more movement commands for causing relative movement between a first segment and a second segment of a robot, the second segment being movably connected to the first segment by a joint (column 35, lines 25-36 and column 38, lines 58-65); receiving actuation data associated with the relative movement (column 35, line 38 and column 39, lines 1-2); estimating, based on the actuation data, at least one parameter of the robot (column 35, lines 43-44 and column 39, lines 6-8); and outputting a subsequent one or more movement commands for causing subsequent relative movement between the first segment and the second segment, wherein the subsequent one or more movement commands is generated at least in part based on the at least one parameter (column 35, lines 46-50 and column 39, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 30-31, the ‘866 patent recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 29, wherein the at least one parameter includes at least one of: (i) a friction parameter estimate associated with friction between the first segment and the second segment, or (ii) a center of mass (CoM) estimate associated with the first segment (column 36, lines 53-56 and column 37, lines 5-8
Regarding claim 36, the ‘866 patent recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 30, wherein the at least one parameter is a friction parameter estimate of a coefficient of viscous friction, or is an estimate of coulomb friction (column 36, lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 37, the ‘866 patent recites a method comprising: outputting one or more movement commands for causing relative movement between a first segment and a second segment of a robot, the second segment being movably connected to the first segment by a joint (column 35, lines 25-36 and column 40, lines 1-10); receiving actuation data associated with the relative movement (column 35, line 38 and column 40, lines 14-15); estimating, based on the actuation data, at least one parameter of the robot (column 35, lines 43-44 and column 40, lines 19-21); and outputting a subsequent one or more movement commands for causing subsequent relative movement between the first segment and the second segment, wherein the subsequent one or more movement commands is generated at least in part based on the at least one parameter (column 35, lines 46-50 and column 40, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 38-39, the ‘866 patent recites the method of claim 37, wherein the at least one parameter includes at least one of: (i) a friction parameter estimate associated with friction between the first segment and the second segment, or (ii) a center of mass (CoM) estimate associated with the first segment (column 36, lines 53-56 and column 37, lines 5-8).
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: a word is missing between the words “the” and “comprising” on line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2022/0410388 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding claim 21, Park discloses a computing system comprising: a communication interface (Fig. 2, element 23) configured to communicate with a robot (Figs. 1-2, element 10) having a first segment (Fig. 1, element 13) and a second segment (Fig. 1, element 14) movably connected to the first segment by a joint (paragraphs 0032-0048, 0051); and at least one processing circuit (Fig. 2, element 20, 22) configured, when the computing system is in communication with the robot (paragraphs 0044, 0048, 0050-0051), to perform the following: outputting (Figs. 3-4, steps S11, S12) one or more movement commands for causing relative movement between the first segment and the second segment (paragraphs 0060-0062, 0080-0083, 0090); receiving (Figs. 3-4, step S13) actuation data (via Fig. 2, element 25) associated with the relative movement (paragraphs 0053, 0061, 0083-0089); estimating (Figs. 3-4, step S14), based on the actuation data, at least one parameter of the robot (paragraphs 0054-0055, 0061, 0087, 0091-0097); and outputting (Figs. 3-4, step S15) a subsequent one or more movement commands for causing subsequent relative movement between the first segment and the second segment, wherein the subsequent one or more movement commands is generated at least in part based on the at least one parameter (paragraphs 0061, 0098, 0111-0012).
Regarding claim 22, Park discloses the computing system of claim 21, wherein the at least one parameter includes at least one of: (i) a friction parameter estimate associated with friction between the first segment and the second segment (paragraphs 0048, 0054-0059 and 0097), or (ii) a center of mass (CoM) estimate associated with the first segment.
Regarding claim 23, Park discloses the computing system of claim 22, wherein estimating the CoM includes removing and/or compensating for an influence of a force and/or a torque of another segment and/or an end effector further from a joint than a distal end of the first segment or the second segment for which the CoM is being estimated. Note that further limitations directed to CoM are optional as per claim 22 which requires (ii) a center of mass estimate only as an alternative to (i) friction parameter estimate.
Regarding claim 24, Park discloses the computing system of claim 23, wherein: the at least one processing circuit is further configured to receive movement data associated with the relative movement and associated with the actuation data (paragraph 0053). Note that further limitations directed to CoM are optional as per claim 22. Accordingly, the “estimating the CoM is based on at least a portion of the actuation data having associated movement data with a value below a threshold” is optional.
Regarding claim 25, Park discloses the computing system of claim 24, wherein the values of the movement data correspond to an angle formed between the first segment and the second segment at the joint (paragraph 0087, “angle information”).
Regarding claim 26, Park discloses the computing system of claim 24, wherein the values of the movement data correspond to an angular velocity between the first segment and the second segment at the joint (paragraphs 0064, 0087, “rotation angular velocity” and “velocity information”).
Regarding claim 27, Park discloses the computing system of claim 22, wherein estimating the friction parameter includes ignoring, estimating, or pre-calculating a center of mass of the first segment or the second segment (paragraphs 0009, 0062-0067, 0071).
Regarding claim 28, Park discloses the computing system of claim 22, wherein the at least one parameter is a friction parameter estimate of a coefficient of viscous friction, or is an estimate of coulomb friction (paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 29, Park discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processing circuit of a computing system (Fig. 2, element 20, 22; paragraphs 0044, 0048, 0050-0051), cause the at least one processing circuit to perform [a method] comprising: outputting (Figs. 3-4, steps S11, S12) one or more movement commands for causing relative movement between a first segment and a second segment of a robot, the second segment being movably connected to the first segment by a joint (paragraphs 0060-0062, 0080-0083, 0090); receiving (Figs. 3-4, step S13) actuation data associated with the relative movement (paragraphs 0053, 0061, 0083-0089); estimating (Figs. 3-4, step S14), based on the actuation data, at least one parameter of the robot (paragraphs 0054-0055, 0061, 0087, 0091-0097); and outputting (Figs. 3-4, step S15) a subsequent one or more movement commands for causing subsequent relative movement between the first segment and the second segment, wherein the subsequent one or more movement commands is generated at least in part based on the at least one parameter (paragraphs 0061, 0098, 0111-0012).
Regarding claim 30, Park discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 29, wherein the at least one parameter includes at least one of: (i) a friction parameter estimate associated with friction between the first segment and the second segment (paragraph 0048, 0054-0059 and 0097), or (ii) a center of mass (CoM) estimate associated with the first segment.
Regarding claim 31, Park discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 30, wherein estimating the CoM includes removing and/or compensating for an influence of a force and/or a torque of another segment and/or an end effector further from a joint than a distal end of the first segment or the second segment for which the CoM is being estimated. Note that further limitations directed to center of mass estimate are optional as per claim 30 which requires (ii) a center of mass estimate only as an alternative to (i) friction parameter estimate.
Regarding claim 32, Park discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein: the at least one processing circuit is further configured to receive movement data associated with the relative movement and associated with the actuation data (paragraph 0053). Note that further limitations directed to center of mass estimate are optional as per claim 30. Accordingly, the “estimating the CoM is based on at least a portion of the actuation data having associated movement data with a value below a threshold” is optional.
Regarding claim 33, Park discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 32, wherein the values of the movement data correspond to an angle formed between the first segment and the second segment at the joint (paragraph 0087, “angle information”).
Regarding claim 34, Park discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 32, wherein the values of the movement data correspond to an angular velocity between the first segment and the second segment at the joint (paragraph 0064, 0087, “rotation angular velocity” and “velocity information”).
Regarding claim 35, Park discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 30, wherein estimating the friction parameter includes ignoring, estimating, or pre-calculating a center of mass of the first segment or the second segment (paragraph 0009, 0062-0067, 0071).
Regarding claim 36, Park discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 30, wherein the at least one parameter is a friction parameter estimate of a coefficient of viscous friction, or is an estimate of coulomb friction (paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 37, Park discloses a method comprising: outputting (Figs. 3-4, steps S11, S12) one or more movement commands for causing relative movement between a first segment (Fig. 1, element 13) and a second segment (Fig. 1, element 14) of a robot (Figs. 1-2, element 10), the second segment being movably connected to the first segment by a joint (paragraphs 0032-0048, 0050-0051, 0060-0062, 0080-0083, 0090); receiving (Figs. 3-4, step S13) actuation data (via Fig. 2, element 25) associated with the relative movement (paragraphs 0053, 0061, 0083-0089); estimating (Figs. 3-4, step S14), based on the actuation data, at least one parameter of the robot (paragraphs 0054-0055, 0061, 0087, 0091-0097); and outputting (Figs. 3-4, step S15) a subsequent one or more movement commands for causing subsequent relative movement between the first segment and the second segment, wherein the subsequent one or more movement commands is generated at least in part based on the at least one parameter (paragraphs 0061, 0098, 0111-0012).
Regarding claim 38, Park discloses the method of claim 37, wherein the at least one parameter includes at least one of: (i) a friction parameter estimate associated with friction between the first segment and the second segment (paragraphs 0048, 0054-0059 and 0097), or (ii) a center of mass (CoM) estimate associated with the first segment.
Regarding claim 39, Park discloses the method of claim 38, wherein estimating the CoM includes removing and/or compensating for an influence of a force and/or a torque of another segment and/or an end effector further from a joint than a distal end of the first segment or the second segment for which the CoM is being estimated. Note that further limitations directed to center of mass estimate are optional as per claim 38 which requires (ii) a center of mass estimate only as an alternative to (i) friction parameter estimate.
Regarding claim 40, Park discloses the method of claim 39, further including: receiving movement data associated with the relative movement and associated with the actuation data (paragraph 0053). Note that further limitations directed to center of mass estimate are optional as per claim 38. Accordingly, the “estimating the CoM is based on at least a portion of the actuation data having associated movement data with a value below a threshold” is optional.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Matsumoto et al. (US 2015/0258685 A1) and Oaki (US 2015/0039128 A1) both appear to anticipate claims 21-40. Tsai et al. (US 2017/0261529 A1) appears to anticipate claims 29-40.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE MOYER whose telephone number is (571)270-7821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoi H Tran can be reached at 571-272-6919. 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.
/Dale Moyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656