DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 6: “on” should be deleted from “location on or position of the joint”.
Claim 19, line 2: “one of” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “control unit” in claim 19.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See MPEP 2164.08(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The application as filed does not link a particular structure or the required computer implemented algorithm to the term “control unit”. At page 23, lines 1-4 of the specification as filed, the term “control units” is contrasted with devices which can be programmed to execute steps. It is not clear what structure and algorithm correspond to “control unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Analysis of the claims in view of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) is provided below.
Re claim 1. A method for controlling a plurality of joints of a robot based on a desired joint state, the method comprising
obtaining information on the desired joint state;
obtaining information on a current joint state;
filtering the desired joint state based on the information on the current joint state and based on state constraints of the robot to obtain information on a filtered desired joint state, wherein the filtered desired joint state complies to the state constraints; and
providing the information on the filtered desired joint states to control the joints of the robot.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of filtering the desired joint state. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind. For example, a person could mentally modify a desired joint state to comply with constraints, such as joint limits. Thus, this step recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of obtaining information and providing information. These limitations are directed to the extra-solution activity of data gathering and outputting, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of obtaining information and providing information were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here), see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-19, these claims are dependent upon independent claim 1, and provide additional elements that cover performance of the limitation in the mind, and as such, they fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Further, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus they are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brisson (US Publication No. 2022/0175472).
Brisson teaches:
Re claim 1. A method for controlling a plurality of joints of a robot based on a desired joint state, the method comprising
obtaining information on the desired joint state (Step 900, Fig. 9; and paragraph [0079]: “In Step 900, a desired state is obtained. The desired state may be for one or multiple joints associated with one or more manipulator arm segments of the manipulator assembly, or for the entire manipulator assembly. The desired state may be a desired position, a desired velocity, a desired force, etc. Depending on the implementation of the method for reducing an energy buildup, the desired state may be provided in a Cartesian reference frame or in a joint reference frame.”);
obtaining information on a current joint state (Step 902, Fig. 9; and paragraph [0082]: “In Step 902, an actual state is obtained. The actual state may be an actual position, an actual velocity, an actual torque, an actual force, etc. In one or more embodiments, the actual state, used for the subsequent steps, is represented by a sensed state. The sensed state may be obtained from sensors, e.g., sensors in the joint actuators. Thus, the sensed state may be a measurement of the actual state. The sensed state may alternatively be an estimate of the actual state. For the purpose of the subsequent discussion, the sensed/estimated state and the actual state are treated as equivalents. Depending on the implementation of the method for reducing an energy buildup, the actual state may be provided in a Cartesian space or in a joint space.”);
filtering the desired joint state based on the information on the current joint state and based on state constraints of the robot to obtain information on a filtered desired joint state, wherein the filtered desired joint state complies to the state constraints (Step 904-906, Fig. 9; and paragraphs [0086-0087]: “the difference between the commanded state and the actual state is compared against an error threshold to determine whether the difference exceeds the error threshold.”; “The resulting difference between the commanded state and the actual state may be barely sufficient to reach the saturation limit of the associated actuator, based on the proportional control gain (KP) selected for the actuator, i.e., the commanded state may be set to the minimum distance (or a small multiple of the minimum distance) from the actual state required to obtain saturation. In other words, a barely sufficient difference between the commanded state and the actual state is a difference that drives the servo loop into saturation without the difference being significantly larger than necessary to reach the saturation limit. The updating of the commanded state may be performed in a single time instant or more gradually over time (e.g. over a fraction of a second or multiple seconds, etc.) in a single step or over multiple steps. A multi-step or more gradual updating may be more likely used with algorithms that check the commanded state for unexpected jumps (e.g. seemingly implausible jumps, such as jumps beyond what the system can achieve or an expected maximum for the operating condition). In such cases, a multi-step or more gradual updating would help avoid incorrectly triggering such algorithms.” Paragraphs [0059-0060] teach environmental constrains the robot must comply with. Paragraph [0066] teaches hardware limitations, such as a maximum motor current.); and
providing the information on the filtered desired joint states to control the joints of the robot (Step 908, Fig. 9; and paragraph [0088]: “the commanded state is applied to control the actual state of the manipulator arm assembly.”).
Re claim 2. Wherein the filtering of the desired state is based on reducing a difference between the filtered desired state and the desired state considering the state constraints (paragraph [0087]: “The updating of the commanded state may be performed in a single time instant or more gradually over time (e.g. over a fraction of a second or multiple seconds, etc.) in a single step or over multiple steps. A multi-step or more gradual updating may be more likely used with algorithms that check the commanded state for unexpected jumps (e.g. seemingly implausible jumps, such as jumps beyond what the system can achieve or an expected maximum for the operating condition). In such cases, a multi-step or more gradual updating would help avoid incorrectly triggering such algorithms.”. As the actual state moves towards the commanded state, the commanded state and the updated commanded state will be closer together.).
Re claim 3. Wherein the filtering is based on minimizing a difference between the filtered desired state and the desired state considering the state constraints (paragraph [0087]: “The updating of the commanded state may be performed in a single time instant or more gradually over time (e.g. over a fraction of a second or multiple seconds, etc.) in a single step or over multiple steps. A multi-step or more gradual updating may be more likely used with algorithms that check the commanded state for unexpected jumps (e.g. seemingly implausible jumps, such as jumps beyond what the system can achieve or an expected maximum for the operating condition). In such cases, a multi-step or more gradual updating would help avoid incorrectly triggering such algorithms.”. As the actual state moves towards the commanded state, the commanded state and the updated commanded state will be closer together.).
Re claim 4. Wherein the difference is determined by a sum or a weighted sum of the differences between the desired joint state and the filtered desired joint state in terms one or more of location or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, an acceleration of the joint, a jerk of the joint, and/or a higher order derivative of the location or position (step 904, Fig. 9; and paragraph [0085]).
Re claim 7. Wherein the filtering is further based on avoiding an ultimate infeasible state of the robot (paragraphs [0066 and 0073]).
Re claim 9. Wherein the filtering is further based on coupling effects between the joints of the robot and/or non-linear dynamics of the joints of the robot (paragraph [0074]: “the method may also be applied in a Cartesian reference frame, e.g., when applying a similar paradigm to an entire manipulator arm”; paragraph [0076]: “the method may be applied to position, velocity, or force signals, in joint space and/or in Cartesian space.”).
Re claim 10. Wherein the current, the desired and the filtered desired joint states comprise one or more of information on a location or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, an acceleration of the joint, a jerk of the joint, and/or a higher order derivative of the location or position (paragraph [0076]: “the method may be applied to position, velocity, or force signals”).
Re claim 14. Wherein the filtering is based on state constraints, which are based on a number of multiple subsequent time intervals (paragraph [0108]).
Re claim 18. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program having program code for performing the method according to claim 1, when the computer program is executed on a computer, a processor, or a programmable hardware component (paragraphs [0061-0064], Fig. 7A and Fig. 9).
Re claim 19. An apparatus for controlling a plurality of joints of a robot comprising a control unit for performing one of the method of claim 1 (paragraphs [0061-0064], Fig. 7A and Fig. 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisson (US Publication No. 2022/0175472) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ichnowski et al. (US Publication No. 2021/0365032).
The teachings of Brisson have been discussed above. Brisson fails to specifically teach: (re claim 5) wherein the difference is a mean-square error or a weighted mean square error between the filtered desired state and the desired state considering the state constraints.
Ichnowski teaches, at the abstract and paragraph [0061], using a weighted sum of mean squared error for determining trajectories for an autonomous system while accounting for constraints of the system. This allows close matching of a desired trajectory to an output trajectory, while keeping the output trajectory kinematically and dynamically feasible.
In view of Ichnowski’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Brisson, (re claim 5) wherein the difference is a mean-square error or a weighted mean square error between the filtered desired state and the desired state considering the state constraints, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ichnowski teaches using a weighted sum of mean squared error for determining trajectories for an autonomous system while accounting for constraints of the system. This allows close matching of a desired trajectory to an output trajectory, while keeping the output trajectory kinematically and dynamically feasible.
Brisson further teaches:
Re claim 6. Wherein the filtering comprises determining filter rules for each of the plurality of joints separately (claim 30).
Brisson fails to specifically teach: (re claim 8) wherein the avoiding of the ultimate infeasible state is based on analyzing an effect of a filtered desired jerk on future states.
Ichnowski teaches, at paragraph [0073], enforcing jerk limits on robotic joints so as to reduce wear on the robot, leading to longer lifespans and reduced downtime, as well as reduce travel time, increase construction speed, reduce durations of surgical operations, and so on.
In view of Ichnowski’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Brisson, (re claim 8) wherein the avoiding of the ultimate infeasible state is based on analyzing an effect of a filtered desired jerk on future states, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ichnowski teaches enforcing jerk limits on robotic joints so as to reduce wear on the robot, leading to longer lifespans and reduced downtime, as well as reduce travel time, increase construction speed, reduce durations of surgical operations, and so on.
Brisson fails to specifically teach: (re claim 17) wherein the state constraints comprise kinematic and dynamic constraints of the joint.
Ichnowski teaches, at paragraph [0061], keeping an output trajectory kinematically and dynamically feasible. This ensure that any output may be physically achieved by the system.
In view of Ichnowski’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Brisson, (re claim 17) wherein the state constraints comprise kinematic and dynamic constraints of the joint, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Ichnowski teaches, at paragraph [0061], keeping an output trajectory kinematically and dynamically feasible. This ensure that any output may be physically achieved by the system.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisson (US Publication No. 2022/0175472) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Dariush (US Publication No. 2007/0162164).
The teachings of Brisson have been discussed above. Brisson fails to specifically teach: (re claim 11) wherein the current and the filtered desired joint states comprise information on a location or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, an acceleration of the joint and a jerk of the joint, and
wherein the desired joint state comprises three or less elements of the group of information on a location on or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, an acceleration of the joint and a jerk of the joint, and
wherein the method further comprises predicting a desired joint state for a subsequent time interval based on the current and the desired joint state, wherein the desired joint state for the subsequent time interval comprises predicted information on one or more elements of the group of a location or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, an acceleration of the joint and a jerk of the joint, and
wherein the filtering is based on the predicted desired joint state for the subsequent time interval.
Dariush teaches, at Fig. 3, and paragraphs [0053, 0073, and 0083], predicting joint variables q from prediction system 316 based on the fed back joint variables q, constraints 304, and computed task descriptors 312. These values comprise information on a location or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, and acceleration of the joint and a jerk of the joint as the values may be integrated or derived to determine the further parameters, and thus the values contain information on these further parameters. Paragraph [0037] teaches this predictive capacity can be used to fill in time intervals in which data is not available, thus providing a more temporally complete set of joint variables.
In view of Dariush’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Brisson, (re claim 11) wherein the current and the filtered desired joint states comprise information on a location or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, an acceleration of the joint and a jerk of the joint, and wherein the desired joint state comprises three or less elements of the group of information on a location on or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, an acceleration of the joint and a jerk of the joint, and wherein the method further comprises predicting a desired joint state for a subsequent time interval based on the current and the desired joint state, wherein the desired joint state for the subsequent time interval comprises predicted information on one or more elements of the group of a location or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, an acceleration of the joint and a jerk of the joint, and wherein the filtering is based on the predicted desired joint state for the subsequent time interval, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Dariush teaches, at Fig. 3, and paragraphs [0053, 0073, and 0083], predicting joint variables q from prediction system 316 based on the fed back joint variables q, constraints 304, and computed task descriptors 312. These values comprise information on a location or position of the joint, a velocity of the joint, and acceleration of the joint and a jerk of the joint as the values may be integrated or derived to determine the further parameters, and thus the values contain information on these further parameters. Paragraph [0037] teaches this predictive capacity can be used to fill in time intervals in which data is not available, thus providing a more temporally complete set of joint variables.
Brisson fails to specifically teach: (re claim 12) wherein the predicting of the desired joint state for the subsequent time interval comprises using a parametric state estimation based on the desired joint state to obtain the predicted desired joint state for the subsequent time interval.
Dariush teaches, at paragraphs [0043 and 0077] and Figs. 3 and 6, the target system may be described by kinematic parameters or kinematic and dynamic parameters.
In view of Dariush’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Brisson, (re claim 12) wherein the predicting of the desired joint state for the subsequent time interval comprises using a parametric state estimation based on the desired joint state to obtain the predicted desired joint state for the subsequent time interval, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Dariush teaches, at paragraphs [0043 and 0077] and Figs. 3 and 6, the target system may be described by kinematic parameters or kinematic and dynamic parameters. Paragraph [0037] teaches the predictive capacity of Dariush can be used to fill in time intervals in which data is not available, thus providing a more temporally complete set of joint variables.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisson (US Publication No. 2022/0175472) as modified by Dariush (US Publication No. 2007/0162164) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (Make Bipedal Robots Learn How to Imitate).
The teachings of Brisson have been discussed above. Brisson fails to specifically teach: (re claim 13) wherein the parametric state estimation uses a Savitzky-Golay algorithm.
Kumar teaches, at the abstract, determining desired joint angles of a robot within physical limits while using a Savitzky-Golay filter to smooth the data. This reduces noise in the dataset.
In view of Kumar’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Brisson, (re claim 13) wherein the parametric state estimation uses a Savitzky-Golay algorithm, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Kumar teaches, at the abstract, determining desired joint angles of a robot within physical limits while using a Savitzky-Golay filter to smooth the data. This reduces noise in the dataset.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brisson (US Publication No. 2022/0175472) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lalonde et al. (US Publication No. 2018/0172450).
The teachings of Brisson have been discussed above. Brisson fails to specifically teach: (re claim 15) wherein the number of subsequent intervals is configured to allow stopping a motion of a joint based on a maximum deceleration constraint of the joint.
Lalonde teaches, at paragraph [0216], applying a maximum deceleration to a motive source in a robot at the end of a stopping trajectory to ensure safety in the event of a failure to plan at a subsequent planning time interval.
In view of Lalonde’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the method as taught by Brisson, (re claim 15) wherein the number of subsequent intervals is configured to allow stopping a motion of a joint based on a maximum deceleration constraint of the joint, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Lalonde teaches, at paragraph [0216], applying a maximum deceleration to a motive source in a robot at the end of a stopping trajectory to ensure safety in the event of a failure to plan at a subsequent planning time interval.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656