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 .
Status of claims
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is rejected under 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6-15 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-051535, filed on 3/28/22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 12/19/25 and 9/27/24. The submission 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 § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsuboi (US 20090076657 A1), in further view of Parietti (NPL | Series Viscoelastic Actuators Can Match Human Force Perception | 2011).
Regarding claim 1 Tsuboi teaches A holder controller for controlling a holder to hold an object (Tsuboi abstract reads “A control device that controls grip of an object is disclosed. The control device includes: detecting means for detecting a slip of the object and outputting a slip detection value; change-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a change value for changing a command value, which sets gripping force for the object, to magnitude for resting the object; suppression-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a suppression value for suppressing the command value to necessary minimum magnitude for resting the object; “);
with a protector between the holder and the object, (Tsuboi figure 2b depicts the addition of a protector that would go between the grasped object and the robotic gripper.);
PNG
media_image1.png
237
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsuboi figure 2b
the holder controller being configured to control a holding force of the holder (Tsuboi [0079 – 0080] reads “The deforming section 41 is made of a viscoelastic body having a viscoelastic characteristic such as a silicon gel material. The deforming section 41 can be easily deformed by a load from the outside. The pressure detecting section 42 includes a capacitance-type pressure sensor that detects pressure making use of a principle of detection of, for example, a resistance change and a capacitance change. Stress relaxation and stress dispersion are caused by the deformation of the deforming section 41 and pressure is dispersed to the pressure detecting section 42 on the inside. Therefore, the pressure detecting section 42 can obtain sensing performance equal to or higher than spatial resolution of the capacitance-type pressure sensor on the basis of an interpolation characteristic due to the deformation of the viscoelastic body. … The pressure detecting section 42 can acquire amounts equivalent to a slip direction and slip speed according to a slip by using the pressure center for sensing of a slip. Therefore, it is possible to perform control for object gripping and manipulation control for treating an object while causing the object to slip with fingertips of a robot hand.”);
Tsuboi does not teach based on a viscoelastic characteristic of the protector.
Parietti in analogous art, teaches based on a viscoelastic characteristic of the protector. based on a viscoelastic characteristic of the protector. (Parietti abstract reads “Series elastic actuators (SEAs) are frequently used for force control in haptic interaction, because they decouple actuator inertia from the end effector by a compliant element. … Here, we extend the concept to deformable end effectors manufactured of viscoelastic materials. … However, force and deformation are no longer statically related, and history of force and deformation has to be accounted for. This new integrated concept of sensing and actuation, called series viscoelastic actuator (SVA), is applied to our high-precision haptic device OSVALD, which is targeted at perception experiments that require sensing and rendering of forces in the range of the human tactile threshold. User-device interaction force is controlled using state of-the-art control strategies of SEAs. Force estimation and force control performance are evaluated experimentally and prove to be compatible with the intended applications, showing that SVAs open up new possibilities for the use of series compliance and damping in high-precision haptic interfaces.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsuboi with that of Parietti to include a method that would allow for the system to adjust to the viscoelastic properties of the gripper material. This would allow the gripper to better preform when gripping an object. (Parietti abstract reads “Series elastic actuators (SEAs) are frequently used for force control in haptic interaction, because they decouple actuator inertia from the end effector by a compliant element. … Here, we extend the concept to deformable end effectors manufactured of viscoelastic materials. … However, force and deformation are no longer statically related, and history of force and deformation has to be accounted for. This new integrated concept of sensing and actuation, called series viscoelastic actuator (SVA), is applied to our high-precision haptic device OSVALD, which is targeted at perception experiments that require sensing and rendering of forces in the range of the human tactile threshold.”);
Regarding claim 3 Tsuboi/Parietti teaches The holder controller according to claim 1 (Tsuboi [0009] reads “According to an embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a control device that controls grip of an object, the control device including detecting means for detecting a slip of the object and outputting a slip detection value, change-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a change value for changing a command value, which sets gripping force for the object, to magnitude for resting the object, suppression-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a suppression value for suppressing the command value to necessary minimum magnitude for resting the object, and setting means for setting the magnitude of the command value on the basis of the change value and the suppression value.”);
based on a change over time in the viscoelastic characteristic of the protector. (Parietti page 2 paragraph 3 reads “Particular emphasis has been put on the mechanical optimization of the end effector and on the development of an algorithm to accurately estimate force from deformation, despite viscoelastic properties such as creep and relaxation”);
Regarding claim 5 Tsuboi/Parietti teaches The holder controller according to claim 1, further comprising: a correction filter configured to perform first filtering to reduce an effect (Tsuboi [0118] reads “The pressure-center-movement calculating unit 123 applies low-pass filter processing or moving average processing to COPx(t) and COPy(t) in order to absorb very small fluctuation amounts. In the following explanation, the moving average processing with a simpler calculation is used.” And [1183] reads “The gripping force suppression control needs to be performed more slowly than control for increasing the gripping force. … However, it is also possible to obtain signals with small fluctuation using a low-pass filter or the like.”);
of the viscoelastic characteristic of the protector. (Parietti abstract reads “Series elastic actuators (SEAs) are frequently used for force control in haptic interaction, because they decouple actuator inertia from the end effector by a compliant element. … Here, we extend the concept to deformable end effectors manufactured of viscoelastic materials. … However, force and deformation are no longer statically related, and history of force and deformation has to be accounted for. This new integrated concept of sensing and actuation, called series viscoelastic actuator (SVA), is applied to our high-precision haptic device OSVALD, which is targeted at perception experiments that require sensing and rendering of forces in the range of the human tactile threshold. User-device interaction force is controlled using state of-the-art control strategies of SEAs. Force estimation and force control performance are evaluated experimentally and prove to be compatible with the intended applications, showing that SVAs open up new possibilities for the use of series compliance and damping in high-precision haptic interfaces.”);
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsuboi/Parietti, in further view of Shaffer (US 20200306988 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Tsuboi/Parietti teaches The holder controller according to claim 1, wherein the holder controller is configured to control the holding force of the holder (Tsuboi [0009] reads “According to an embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a control device that controls grip of an object, the control device including detecting means for detecting a slip of the object and outputting a slip detection value, change-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a change value for changing a command value, which sets gripping force for the object, to magnitude for resting the object, suppression-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a suppression value for suppressing the command value to necessary minimum magnitude for resting the object, and setting means for setting the magnitude of the command value on the basis of the change value and the suppression value.”);
Tsuboi/Parietti does not teach based on an environmental change in the viscoelastic characteristic of the protector.
Shaffer in analogous art, teaches based on an environmental change in the viscoelastic characteristic of the protector. (Shaffer [0010] reads “In an exemplary embodiment, the proposed methodology is applied to the intermittent cold-object-drop accident example, introduced above. In this exemplary embodiment, the proposed methodology includes correlating measured temperature and pressure (physical parameter) values generated by one or more multimodal sensor arrays prior to or during the previous occurrence of one or more cold-object-drop accidents in order to identify an underlying cause (e.g., objects are dropped when their temperature is below 10° C.). Once the accident's cause is identified, a suitable corrective action may be devised that, when performed by each work cell, prevents reoccurrence of the cold-object-drop accident. For example, experiments may be conducted at various temperatures and grip pressures to determine that reoccurrences of cold-object-drop accidents are reliably prevented by temporarily increasing the applied gripper pressure (e.g., from the normal ten kPa to twelve kPa) whenever a currently grasped target object's temperature is at or below 10° C.“ it would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that the cold temperatures of the object would equate to similarly cold temperatures of the gripper.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsuboi/Parietti with that of Shaffer to include a method for adapting the manipulation of a robotic system when temperatures become cold. This would allow for the system to better handle cold conditions. (Shaffer [0004] reads “A significant limitation of conventional robotic systems is their lack of human-hand-type sensory input that would allow adjustment to a wide range of common operational irregularities and/or to perform advance robotic operations. That is, unlike the sensor systems found in human hands that provide multimodal sensory feedback (i.e., mechanoreceptors sensing both pressure and vibration, and thermoreceptors sensing temperature), the robotic grippers utilized in most conventional robotic systems utilize no sensing architecture, and those that do utilize single-modality sensing architectures (e.g., pressure sensing only) or visual input via camera system. The multimodal sensing architecture found on human hands provides fine-grained cues about contact forces, textures, local shape around contact points, and deformability, all of which are critical for evaluating an ongoing grasping operation, and to trigger force correction measures in case of instability.”);
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsuboi/Parietti, in further view of Kaehler (US 20200206913 A1).
Regarding claim 4 Tsuboi/Parietti teaches The holder controller according to claim 1, wherein the holder controller is configured to control the holding force of the holder (Tsuboi [0009] reads “According to an embodiment of the present invention, there is provided a control device that controls grip of an object, the control device including detecting means for detecting a slip of the object and outputting a slip detection value, change-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a change value for changing a command value, which sets gripping force for the object, to magnitude for resting the object, suppression-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a suppression value for suppressing the command value to necessary minimum magnitude for resting the object, and setting means for setting the magnitude of the command value on the basis of the change value and the suppression value.”);
Tsuboi/Parietti does not teach based on a change in the viscoelastic characteristic of the protector with use.
Kaehler in analogous art, teaches based on a change in the viscoelastic characteristic of the protector with use. (Kaehler [0050] reads “Compensation Block 330 is, thus, able to adjust command signals over time to compensate for inaccuracies in the expected physical dimensions and other properties of Robot 200, physical changes in parts of Robot 225, changes that occur over time, changes in environment in which Robot 225 is operated, and/or the like. These changes can include changes in length of Tendons 120 or Robotic Manipulator 130, wear in gears and/or backlash resulting from wear, Robotic Joints 225 or actuators, temperature changes, changes in spring strength, changes in hydraulic or pneumatic system response, loads on Movement Generation Device 110, weights and balance of objects being manipulated, changes in motor power, and/or the like.” And [0074] reads “The compensation can include, for example, an adjustment in a current, voltage, distance, pressure, digital command, time period, and/or any other aspect of control signals. In some embodiments, the compensation is for a change in response of Robotic Manipulator 130 and/or End Effector 140 to prior (optionally compensated) control signals.“);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Tsuboi/Parietti with that of Kaehler to provide a method for adapting the control of the robotic system to account for different parts of the robotic system wearing out. This would allow for the system to continue to operate with a high level of accuracy throughout its lifespan. (Kaehler abstract reads “A software compensated robotic system makes use of recurrent neural networks and image processing to control operation and/or movement of an end effector. Images are used to compensate for variations in the response of the robotic system to command signals. This compensation allows for the use of components having lower reproducibility, precision and/or accuracy that would otherwise be practical.”);
Claim(s) 6-8, 10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsuboi (US 20090076657 A1),in further view of Parietti (NPL | Series Viscoelastic Actuators Can Match Human Force Perception | 2011), in further view of Nakajima (US 20120065902 A1);
Regarding claim 6 Tsuboi teaches A control device for controlling a holder to hold an object, the holder including a sensor configured to detect a holding force of the holder holding the object, (Tsuboi abstract reads “A control device that controls grip of an object is disclosed. The control device includes: detecting means for detecting a slip of the object and outputting a slip detection value; change-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a change value for changing a command value, which sets gripping force for the object, to magnitude for resting the object; suppression-value calculating means for calculating, on the basis of the slip detection value, a suppression value for suppressing the command value to necessary minimum magnitude for resting the object; “);
and a protector on a sensing portion included in the sensor, the sensor being configured to detect the holding force with the protector between the sensor and the object, (Tsuboi figure 2b depicts the addition of a protector that would go between the grasped object and the robotic gripper.);
PNG
media_image1.png
237
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsuboi figure 2b
the control device comprising: a holder controller configured to control the holding force in response to a detection signal output from the sensor, (Tsuboi [0079 – 0080] reads “The deforming section 41 is made of a viscoelastic body having a viscoelastic characteristic such as a silicon gel material. The deforming section 41 can be easily deformed by a load from the outside. The pressure detecting section 42 includes a capacitance-type pressure sensor that detects pressure making use of a principle of detection of, for example, a resistance change and a capacitance change. Stress relaxation and stress dispersion are caused by the deformation of the deforming section 41 and pressure is dispersed to the pressure detecting section 42 on the inside. Therefore, the pressure detecting section 42 can obtain sensing performance equal to or higher than spatial resolution of the capacitance-type pressure sensor on the basis of an interpolation characteristic due to the deformation of the viscoelastic body. … The pressure detecting section 42 can acquire amounts equivalent to a slip direction and slip speed according to a slip by using the pressure center for sensing of a slip. Therefore, it is possible to perform control for object gripping and manipulation control for treating an object while causing the object to slip with fingertips of a robot hand.”);
Tsuboi does not teach the holder controller including a correction filter configured to perform first filtering on the detection signal to reduce an effect of a viscoelastic characteristic of the protector on the detection signal.
Nakajima in analogous art, teaches the holder controller including a correction filter configured to perform first filtering on the detection signal. (Nakajima [0014] reads “A sensor apparatus of the present invention is a sensor apparatus including: a detecting unit including a flexible member deforming according to a state of an object to be measured and a sensor detecting an amount of deformation of the flexible member and outputting an original detection signal indicating a detection result; a digital filter outputting a detection signal obtained by filtering the original detection signal using a filter coefficient; a calculation unit calculating a vibration frequency of the flexible member contained in the original detection signal;”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsuboi with that of Nakajima to include a method for filtering the input data from the robotic sensors. This would allow for the robotic system to have more accurate control over the workpiece that it is grasping. (Nakajima [0007] reads “Thus, the vibration of the flexible member causes the signal component of an output original detection signal to include a noise component vibrating at the natural vibration frequency. A control of each servomotor using the original detection signal including the noise component reduces the accuracy of positioning control on the hand and each link.”);
Tsuboi/Nakajima does not teach to reduce an effect of a viscoelastic characteristic of the protector on the detection signal.
Parietti in analogous art, teaches to reduce an effect of a viscoelastic characteristic of the protector on the detection signal. (Parietti page 856 last paragraph of left column reads “It should be noted that the second output in y, motor speed, is not necessary to make (7) observable. Nevertheless, the filtered derivative of ϕ is used here as an additional input to the Kalman filter.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsuboi with that of Parietti to include a method that would allow for the system to adjust to the viscoelastic properties of the gripper material. This would allow the gripper to better preform when gripping an object. (Parietti abstract reads “Series elastic actuators (SEAs) are frequently used for force control in haptic interaction, because they decouple actuator inertia from the end effector by a compliant element. … Here, we extend the concept to deformable end effectors manufactured of viscoelastic materials. … However, force and deformation are no longer statically related, and history of force and deformation has to be accounted for. This new integrated concept of sensing and actuation, called series viscoelastic actuator (SVA), is applied to our high-precision haptic device OSVALD, which is targeted at perception experiments that require sensing and rendering of forces in the range of the human tactile threshold.”);
Regarding claim 7 Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches The control device according to claim 6, wherein the correction filter is configured to perform second filtering on the detection signal or a signal based on the detection signal to reduce an effect of the first filtering in a frequency bandwidth higher than or equal to a control bandwidth of the holder controller. (Nakajima [0042] reads “The filtering unit 103 is a digital filter such as a FIR and an IIR. The filtering unit 103 uses a filter coefficient to filter the original detection signal 102 and outputs a detection signal 107. The filtering unit 103 can obtain the detection signal 107 reducing noise contained in the signal component contained in the original detection signal 102. However, an excessively high filtering effect may cause a phase delay in the detection signal 107 obtained after the original detection signal 102 is filtered. Further, the vibration frequency of the noise contained in the original detection signal 102 is not always constant.”);
Regarding claim 8 Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches The control device according to claim 7, wherein the correction filter is configured to perform noise reduction on the detection signal or the signal based on the detection signal in the frequency bandwidth higher than or equal to the control bandwidth. (Nakajima [0042] reads “The filtering unit 103 is a digital filter such as a FIR and an IIR. The filtering unit 103 uses a filter coefficient to filter the original detection signal 102 and outputs a detection signal 107. The filtering unit 103 can obtain the detection signal 107 reducing noise contained in the signal component contained in the original detection signal 102. However, an excessively high filtering effect may cause a phase delay in the detection signal 107 obtained after the original detection signal 102 is filtered. Further, the vibration frequency of the noise contained in the original detection signal 102 is not always constant.”);
Regarding claim 10 Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches The control device according to claim 6, further comprising: an adjuster configured to adjust a characteristic of the first filtering (Nakajima [0015] reads “a calculation unit calculating each of a plurality of vibration frequencies of the flexible member contained in the original detection signal; and a change unit changing the filter coefficient of each of the filtering units to cause the digital filter to function as a filter for attenuating each of the vibration frequencies calculated by the calculation unit.”);
based on first indicator information being an indicator of a change over time in the viscoelastic characteristic. (Parietti abstract reads “Series elastic actuators (SEAs) are frequently used for force control in haptic interaction, because they decouple actuator inertia from the end effector by a compliant element. … Here, we extend the concept to deformable end effectors manufactured of viscoelastic materials. … However, force and deformation are no longer statically related, and history of force and deformation has to be accounted for. This new integrated concept of sensing and actuation, called series viscoelastic actuator (SVA), is applied to our high-precision haptic device OSVALD, which is targeted at perception experiments that require sensing and rendering of forces in the range of the human tactile threshold. User-device interaction force is controlled using state of-the-art control strategies of SEAs. Force estimation and force control performance are evaluated experimentally and prove to be compatible with the intended applications, showing that SVAs open up new possibilities for the use of series compliance and damping in high-precision haptic interfaces.”);
Regarding claim 14 Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the holder controller according toclaim 1. (Tsuboi [0286] reads “A program recording medium that stores programs installed in a computer and executable by the computer includes, as shown in FIG. 32, the removable medium 621 as a package medium including a magnetic disk (including a flexible disk), an optical disk (including a CD-ROM (Compact Disc-Read Only Memory) and a DVD (Digital Versatile Disc), a magneto-optical disk,) or a semiconductor memory, the ROM 622 in which programs are temporarily or permanently stored, and the hard disk configuring the storing unit 628.”);
Regarding claim 15 Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as the control device according toclaim 6. (Tsuboi [0286] reads “A program recording medium that stores programs installed in a computer and executable by the computer includes, as shown in FIG. 32, the removable medium 621 as a package medium including a magnetic disk (including a flexible disk), an optical disk (including a CD-ROM (Compact Disc-Read Only Memory) and a DVD (Digital Versatile Disc), a magneto-optical disk,) or a semiconductor memory, the ROM 622 in which programs are temporarily or permanently stored, and the hard disk configuring the storing unit 628.”);
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti, in further view of Shaffer (US 20200306988 A1).
Regarding claim 9 Tsuboi Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches The control device according to claim 6, further comprising: an adjuster configured to adjust a characteristic of the first filtering (Nakajima [0015] reads “a calculation unit calculating each of a plurality of vibration frequencies of the flexible member contained in the original detection signal; and a change unit changing the filter coefficient of each of the filtering units to cause the digital filter to function as a filter for attenuating each of the vibration frequencies calculated by the calculation unit.”);
Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti does not teach based on a detection result of a temperature of the protector.
Shaffer in analogous art, teaches based on a detection result of a temperature of the protector. (Shaffer [0010] reads “In an exemplary embodiment, the proposed methodology is applied to the intermittent cold-object-drop accident example, introduced above. In this exemplary embodiment, the proposed methodology includes correlating measured temperature and pressure (physical parameter) values generated by one or more multimodal sensor arrays prior to or during the previous occurrence of one or more cold-object-drop accidents in order to identify an underlying cause (e.g., objects are dropped when their temperature is below 10° C.).”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti with that of Shaffer to include a method for adapting the manipulation of a robotic system when temperatures become cold. This would allow for the system to better handle cold conditions. (Shaffer [0004] reads “A significant limitation of conventional robotic systems is their lack of human-hand-type sensory input that would allow adjustment to a wide range of common operational irregularities and/or to perform advance robotic operations. That is, unlike the sensor systems found in human hands that provide multimodal sensory feedback (i.e., mechanoreceptors sensing both pressure and vibration, and thermoreceptors sensing temperature), the robotic grippers utilized in most conventional robotic systems utilize no sensing architecture, and those that do utilize single-modality sensing architectures (e.g., pressure sensing only) or visual input via camera system. The multimodal sensing architecture found on human hands provides fine-grained cues about contact forces, textures, local shape around contact points, and deformability, all of which are critical for evaluating an ongoing grasping operation, and to trigger force correction measures in case of instability.”);
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti, in further view of Kaehler (US 20200206913 A1).
Regarding claim 11 Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches The control device according to claim 6, further comprising: an adjuster configured to adjust a characteristic of the first filtering (Nakajima [0015] reads “a calculation unit calculating each of a plurality of vibration frequencies of the flexible member contained in the original detection signal; and a change unit changing the filter coefficient of each of the filtering units to cause the digital filter to function as a filter for attenuating each of the vibration frequencies calculated by the calculation unit.”);
Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti does not teach based on second indicator information being an indicator of a change in the viscoelastic characteristic of the protector with use.
Kaehler in analogous art, teaches based on second indicator information being an indicator of a change in the viscoelastic characteristic of the protector with use. (Kaehler [0050] reads “Compensation Block 330 is, thus, able to adjust command signals over time to compensate for inaccuracies in the expected physical dimensions and other properties of Robot 200, physical changes in parts of Robot 225, changes that occur over time, changes in environment in which Robot 225 is operated, and/or the like. These changes can include changes in length of Tendons 120 or Robotic Manipulator 130, wear in gears and/or backlash resulting from wear, Robotic Joints 225 or actuators, temperature changes, changes in spring strength, changes in hydraulic or pneumatic system response, loads on Movement Generation Device 110, weights and balance of objects being manipulated, changes in motor power, and/or the like.” And [0074] reads “The compensation can include, for example, an adjustment in a current, voltage, distance, pressure, digital command, time period, and/or any other aspect of control signals. In some embodiments, the compensation is for a change in response of Robotic Manipulator 130 and/or End Effector 140 to prior (optionally compensated) control signals.“);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti with that of Kaehler to provide a method for adapting the control of the robotic system to account for different parts of the robotic system wearing out. This would allow for the system to continue to operate with a high level of accuracy throughout its lifespan. (Kaehler abstract reads “A software compensated robotic system makes use of recurrent neural networks and image processing to control operation and/or movement of an end effector. Images are used to compensate for variations in the response of the robotic system to command signals. This compensation allows for the use of components having lower reproducibility, precision and/or accuracy that would otherwise be practical.”);
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti, in further view of Spenninger (DE 102019108241 B3).
Regarding claim 12 Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches The control device according to claim 6.
Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti does not teach wherein the first filtering has a lead filter characteristic.
Spenninger in analogous art, teaches wherein the first filtering has a lead filter characteristic. (Spenninger page 3 paragraph 13 reads “The respective filter is preferably a linear filter, that is to say a linear transfer function which is defined in particular in the Laplace area and is discretized for the implementation. The filter is preferably a low-pass filter or a band-pass filter or a lead-lag filter whose natural frequencies and attenuations can be parameterized by the at least one first parameter of the force control.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti with that of Spenninger to include a method that would incorporate lead and lag filtering of sensor data. This would allow for less noise in the system and more accurate and safer robotic manipulation. (Spenninger page 3 paragraph 12 reads “It is an advantageous effect of the invention that a relationship and a technical transformation is created by means of the given mapping, which is between a linear scale of mediated”);
Regarding claim 13 Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti teaches The control device according to claim 7.
Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti does not teach wherein the second filtering has a lag filter characteristic.
Spenninger in analogous art, teaches wherein the second filtering has a lag filter characteristic. (Spenninger page 3 paragraph 13 reads “The respective filter is preferably a linear filter, that is to say a linear transfer function which is defined in particular in the Laplace area and is discretized for the implementation. The filter is preferably a low-pass filter or a band-pass filter or a lead-lag filter whose natural frequencies and attenuations can be parameterized by the at least one first parameter of the force control.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsuboi/Nakajima/Parietti with that of Spenninger to include a method that would incorporate lead and lag filtering of sensor data. This would allow for less noise in the system and more accurate and safer robotic manipulation. (Spenninger page 3 paragraph 12 reads “It is an advantageous effect of the invention that a relationship and a technical transformation is created by means of the given mapping, which is between a linear scale of mediated”);
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Shintake (NPL | Soft Robotic Grippers| J. Shintake, V. Cacucciolo, D. Floreano, H. Shea, Adv. Mater. 2018, 30, 1707035. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201707035); Mitsushi (JP 2013113661 A); Wettels (US 20140365009 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658