DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Joint Inventors
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to for the following informalities. The claim reads “wherein the joints comprise resolute joints”, but should instead read “wherein the joints comprise revolute joints”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnehama et al. (US20210133496A1, referred to as Barnehama).
Regarding claim 1: Barnehama discloses: A robotic system comprising: a robot comprising a working portion configured to undergo robotic movement; a controller configured to command the operation of one or more actuators according to encoder values to cause the robotic movement in order to control the position the working portion; and ([0060] The robotic system 100 of FIG. 1 may include hardware 102, control logic 104, and task logic 106. The hardware 102 of a robotic system 100 may include one or more robotic apparatuses 101 (discussed further below with reference to FIG. 2) and hardware that supports the operation of the robotic apparatuses 101 and the performance of tasks by the robotic system 100. The control logic 104 may include specialized circuitry and/or programmed instructions to be executed by one or more processing devices (e.g., included in the robotic apparatus 101 and/or the system-level compute hardware 124, discussed further below) in order to control the operation of one or more robotic apparatuses 101 of the robotic system 100. For example, the control logic 104 may include programmed instructions that, upon execution by one or more processing devices, control the motion and position of the joints 108 of a robotic apparatus 101) an inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured to sense physical movements and to provide IMU data to the robot controller indicative of the sensed physical movements, the IMU being fixed to the working portion of the robot; ([0094] The joint 108 may include an accelerometer 224. In some embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be part of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), which may also include a gyroscope. For example, the accelerometer 224 may be provided by a six-axis IMU (including a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope). In other embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be a standalone device. [0095] The joint 108 may include communications hardware 226. The communications hardware 226 included in a joint 108 may facilitate communication between the elements of the joint 108 and/or between different ones of the joints 108 and/or between a joint 108 and the system-level compute hardware 124.) wherein the controller is configured to fuse the encoder values with the IMU data to determine an estimated position of the robot. ([0096] the communications hardware 226 (in conjunction with the communications hardware 128) may manage the transfer of a packet of data from the joint 108 to the system-level compute hardware 124 at a rate that is greater than 1 kilohertz (e.g., between 1 kilohertz and 100 kilohertz). This packet of data may include the position of the joint 108 (as output from the shaft encoder 222), the velocity of the joint 108 (represented by a time derivative of the output of the shaft encoder 222), the acceleration of the joint 108 (represented by the second time derivative of the output of the shaft encoder 222), a counter (representative of a timestamp, incremented at a clock frequency of the joint-level compute hardware 210, used to align timestamps through the robotic system 100 with a timestamp of the system-level compute hardware 124), status flags, the error in a control loop (as discussed below with reference to FIG. 21), the current to the motor 212, acceleration and velocity data output from a multi-axis IMU (which may provide the accelerometer 224, as discussed above), the output of one or more temperature sensors included in the other hardware 227 of the joint (discussed below), and other data, as desired. The data in this packet may be assembled by the joint-level compute hardware 210 (e.g., a microcontroller) and provided to the communications hardware 226 (e.g., to a USB hub via a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) interface of the joint-level compute hardware 210 through a UART to USB module included in the communications hardware 226). The system-level compute hardware 124 may use this data to control the operation of the robotic apparatus 101, as suitable and as discussed herein.)
Regarding claim 2: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 1,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein: the robot comprises a robot arm with a plurality of links interconnected at joints so that the links can move relative to each other; the working portion comprises a portion of the robot arm; the operation of the actuators causes the links to articulate in order to control the position the robot arm; the IMU is fixed to the robot arm; and ([0094] The joint 108 may include an accelerometer 224. In some embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be part of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), which may also include a gyroscope. For example, the accelerometer 224 may be provided by a six-axis IMU (including a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope). In other embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be a standalone device. [0095] The joint 108 may include communications hardware 226. The communications hardware 226 included in a joint 108 may facilitate communication between the elements of the joint 108 and/or between different ones of the joints 108 and/or between a joint 108 and the system-level compute hardware 124.) the estimated position of the robot comprises an estimated position of the robot arm. ([0073] The control logic 104 may include motion/position logic 132. The motion/position logic 132 may control the motion and position of each of the joints 108 of a robotic apparatus 101. For example, the motion/position logic 132 may include the motor drive logic 230 and the braking logic 234 implemented by the joint-level compute hardware 210. The motion/position logic 132 may receive a command (e.g., from the task logic 106) to move the robotic apparatus 101 to a particular position (e.g., a particular (x, y, z, roll (r), pitch (p), yaw (w)) position of an end effector 118 of the robotic apparatus) and may generate instructions for the motor drive logic 230 and/or the braking logic 234 of the joints 108 to implement the command. Examples of techniques that may be implemented by the motion/position logic 132 are discussed below with reference to FIGS. 17-28 and FIG. 39.)
Regarding claim 3: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 2,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the working portion comprises a tip of the robot arm. ([0060] The robotic system 100 of FIG. 1 may include hardware 102, control logic 104, and task logic 106. The hardware 102 of a robotic system 100 may include one or more robotic apparatuses 101 (discussed further below with reference to FIG. 2) and hardware that supports the operation of the robotic apparatuses 101 and the performance of tasks by the robotic system 100. The control logic 104 may include specialized circuitry and/or programmed instructions to be executed by one or more processing devices (e.g., included in the robotic apparatus 101 and/or the system-level compute hardware 124, discussed further below) in order to control the operation of one or more robotic apparatuses 101 of the robotic system 100. For example, the control logic 104 may include programmed instructions that, upon execution by one or more processing devices, control the motion and position of the joints 108 of a robotic apparatus 101)
Regarding claim 4: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 2,
Barnehama further discloses: comprising multiple IMUs fixed to the robot arm at different locations. ([0094] The joint 108 may include an accelerometer 224. In some embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be part of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), which may also include a gyroscope. For example, the accelerometer 224 may be provided by a six-axis IMU (including a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope). In other embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be a standalone device. [0095] The joint 108 may include communications hardware 226. The communications hardware 226 included in a joint 108 may facilitate communication between the elements of the joint 108 and/or between different ones of the joints 108 and/or between a joint 108 and the system-level compute hardware 124.)
Regarding claim 5: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 4,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein an IMU is fixed to each link. ([0094] The joint 108 may include an accelerometer 224. In some embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be part of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), which may also include a gyroscope. For example, the accelerometer 224 may be provided by a six-axis IMU (including a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope). In other embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be a standalone device. [0095] The joint 108 may include communications hardware 226. The communications hardware 226 included in a joint 108 may facilitate communication between the elements of the joint 108 and/or between different ones of the joints 108 and/or between a joint 108 and the system-level compute hardware 124.)
Regarding claim 6: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 2,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the joints comprise resolute joints ([0084] The task logic 106 may include object manipulation logic 166. The object manipulation logic 166 may support the physical manipulation of objects in the environment of the robotic apparatus 101 by the robotic apparatus 101. For example, the object manipulation logic 166 may control the use of an object manipulator 184 in the end effector 118 of a robotic apparatus to allow the object manipulator 184 to move an object (e.g., to rotate, translate, stack, or otherwise move an item during an inspection process, or for packaging an item before shipping). Examples of object manipulators 184 are discussed in detail below, and the object manipulation logic 166 may utilize the object manipulators 184 and other information (e.g., feedback from one or more cameras included in the end effector 118) to effectively manipulate objects.)
Regarding claim 7: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 2,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the joints comprise prismatic joints. ([0084] The task logic 106 may include object manipulation logic 166. The object manipulation logic 166 may support the physical manipulation of objects in the environment of the robotic apparatus 101 by the robotic apparatus 101. For example, the object manipulation logic 166 may control the use of an object manipulator 184 in the end effector 118 of a robotic apparatus to allow the object manipulator 184 to move an object (e.g., to rotate, translate, stack, or otherwise move an item during an inspection process, or for packaging an item before shipping). Examples of object manipulators 184 are discussed in detail below, and the object manipulation logic 166 may utilize the object manipulators 184 and other information (e.g., feedback from one or more cameras included in the end effector 118) to effectively manipulate objects.)
Regarding claim 8: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 2,
Barnehama further discloses: further comprising linkages connected to the links and the actuators, wherein the actuators are configured to manipulate the linkages in order to cause the links to move via the joints.
Regarding claim 9: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 8,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the linkages comprise at least one of cables, tendons, belts, gear trains, clutches, and linear actuators. ([0089] The joint 108 may include a drivetrain 214. The drivetrain 214 may be coupled to the motor 212 such that the output of a joint 108 is the output of the drivetrain 214. The drivetrain 214 may have a gear ratio that is less than 30:1 (e.g., between 1:1 and 30:1, between 5:1 and 25:1, or between 10:1 and 25:1); a drivetrain 214 with such a gear ratio may be referred to herein as a “quasi-direct drivetrain.” Conventional drivetrains used in conventional robots typically utilize a gear ratio that is greater than 30:1 (e.g., 100:1 to 500:1) in conjunction with a brushless motor, as discussed above. Utilizing a quasi-direct drivetrain 214 may enable the motor 212 and the drivetrain 214 to be backdriven (e.g., an external force on the joint 108 will result in a measurable torque at the motor 212, which can be recognized and controlled for), functionality not available in robots whose gear ratios are higher. [0101] Further, in FIG. 10, some of the joints 108 having motors 212 with shafts 248 that are parallel with the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108 may include an offset between the shaft 248 and the axis of rotation 126. For example, for the joint 108-3, the motor 212-3 may be located toward a “bottom” of the segment 110-2, while the axis of rotation 126-3 of the joint 108-3 may be located toward a “top” of the segment 110-2. The drivetrain 214-3 may bridge the offset between the shafts 248-3 of the motor 212-3 and the axis of rotation 126-3 of the joint 108-3. More generally, the robotic apparatus 101 may include one or more joints 108 whose motors 212 have shafts 248 that are offset from the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108, and/or one or more joints 108 whose motors 212 do not have shafts 248 that are offset from the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108.)
Regarding claim 10: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 2,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the robot comprises a serial robot. ([0101] Further, in FIG. 10, some of the joints 108 having motors 212 with shafts 248 that are parallel with the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108 may include an offset between the shaft 248 and the axis of rotation 126. For example, for the joint 108-3, the motor 212-3 may be located toward a “bottom” of the segment 110-2, while the axis of rotation 126-3 of the joint 108-3 may be located toward a “top” of the segment 110-2. The drivetrain 214-3 may bridge the offset between the shafts 248-3 of the motor 212-3 and the axis of rotation 126-3 of the joint 108-3. More generally, the robotic apparatus 101 may include one or more joints 108 whose motors 212 have shafts 248 that are offset from the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108, and/or one or more joints 108 whose motors 212 do not have shafts 248 that are offset from the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108.)
Regarding claim 11: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 1,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein: the robot comprises a movable member supported on a base by a plurality of actuators, the movable member being movable by the actuators relative to the base; the working portion is supported on and movable with the movable member; the operation of the actuators causes the movable member to articulate in order to control the position of the movable member; and the estimated position of the robot comprises an estimated position of the movable member. ([0073] The control logic 104 may include motion/position logic 132. The motion/position logic 132 may control the motion and position of each of the joints 108 of a robotic apparatus 101. For example, the motion/position logic 132 may include the motor drive logic 230 and the braking logic 234 implemented by the joint-level compute hardware 210. The motion/position logic 132 may receive a command (e.g., from the task logic 106) to move the robotic apparatus 101 to a particular position (e.g., a particular (x, y, z, roll (r), pitch (p), yaw (w)) position of an end effector 118 of the robotic apparatus) and may generate instructions for the motor drive logic 230 and/or the braking logic 234 of the joints 108 to implement the command. Examples of techniques that may be implemented by the motion/position logic 132 are discussed below with reference to FIGS. 17-28 and FIG. 39.)
Regarding claim 12: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 11,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the working portion is supported on the movable member. ([0101] Further, in FIG. 10, some of the joints 108 having motors 212 with shafts 248 that are parallel with the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108 may include an offset between the shaft 248 and the axis of rotation 126. For example, for the joint 108-3, the motor 212-3 may be located toward a “bottom” of the segment 110-2, while the axis of rotation 126-3 of the joint 108-3 may be located toward a “top” of the segment 110-2. The drivetrain 214-3 may bridge the offset between the shafts 248-3 of the motor 212-3 and the axis of rotation 126-3 of the joint 108-3. More generally, the robotic apparatus 101 may include one or more joints 108 whose motors 212 have shafts 248 that are offset from the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108, and/or one or more joints 108 whose motors 212 do not have shafts 248 that are offset from the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108.)
Regarding claim 13: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 11,
Barnehama further discloses: further comprising an IMU fixed to the movable member. ([0094] The joint 108 may include an accelerometer 224. In some embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be part of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), which may also include a gyroscope. For example, the accelerometer 224 may be provided by a six-axis IMU (including a three-axis accelerometer and a three-axis gyroscope). In other embodiments, the accelerometer 224 may be a standalone device. [0095] The joint 108 may include communications hardware 226. The communications hardware 226 included in a joint 108 may facilitate communication between the elements of the joint 108 and/or between different ones of the joints 108 and/or between a joint 108 and the system-level compute hardware 124.)
Regarding claim 14: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 11,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the actuators comprise prismatic joints. ([0101] Further, in FIG. 10, some of the joints 108 having motors 212 with shafts 248 that are parallel with the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108 may include an offset between the shaft 248 and the axis of rotation 126. For example, for the joint 108-3, the motor 212-3 may be located toward a “bottom” of the segment 110-2, while the axis of rotation 126-3 of the joint 108-3 may be located toward a “top” of the segment 110-2. The drivetrain 214-3 may bridge the offset between the shafts 248-3 of the motor 212-3 and the axis of rotation 126-3 of the joint 108-3. More generally, the robotic apparatus 101 may include one or more joints 108 whose motors 212 have shafts 248 that are offset from the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108, and/or one or more joints 108 whose motors 212 do not have shafts 248 that are offset from the axis of rotation 126 of the joint 108.)
Regarding claim 24: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 1,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the working portion comprises an ultrasound probe secured to the robot arm, the IMU being fixed to the ultrasound probe. ([0198] FIG. 35 is a side view of an example robotic apparatus 101 in a calibration setting, in accordance with various embodiments. The robotic apparatus 101 of FIG. 35 has the form of the robotic apparatus 101 of FIGS. 5 and 6, but this is simply illustrative, and the system-level calibration devices and techniques disclosed herein may be utilized with any suitable robotic apparatus 101. The robotic apparatus 101 of FIG. 35 has an end effector 118 that includes a depth sensor 264, a laser 266, and a camera 268. The depth sensor 264 may be any suitable device that measures the distance from the depth sensor 264 to a target surface (here, a surface of the reference structure 270, as discussed below). For example, the depth sensor 264 may include a camera that can generate an array of depth data, a scanner that can generate a line of depth data, or a laser that can generate a single point of depth data. In some embodiments, the depth sensor 264 may be an ultrasonic rangefinder.)
Regarding claim 25: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 1,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the controller is configured to calibrate the encoder values with the IMU data by moving the working portion in open space free from interference from outside structures, wherein the IMU data is presumed accurate and is used to calibrate the encoder values in response to detecting a difference between the encoder values and the IMU data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnehama et al. (US20210133496A1, referred to as Barnehama) in view of Nabat et al. (US7735390, referred to as Nabat).
Regarding claim 15: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 11,
Barnehama does not explicitly disclose: wherein the robot comprises a parallel robot.
Barnehama does not disclose the following limitations, however Nabat, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches: wherein the robot comprises a parallel robot. ([col. 4, lines 63-67] In a first embodiment shown in FIG. 5, the mobile platform (4) is made up of four members (11), (11'), (12), (12"), linked by means of revolving joints (13))
Barnehama and Nabat are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the parallel robotic structure of Nabat.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the robotic linkage configuration taught in Nabat.
Claims 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnehama et al. (US20210133496A1, referred to as Barnehama) in view of Spenninger et al. (WO2020228978A1, referred to as Spenninger).
Regarding claim 16: Barnehama discloses: The robotic system recited in claim 1,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the controller is configured to implement a [recursive] estimation algorithm configured to fuse the encoder values with the IMU data.
Barnehama does not explicitly disclose the following limitations, however Spenninger, from an analogous field of endeavor, further teaches: recursive ([pg. 6, lines 5-15] Equation (4) is to be solved for ώz and co] , both contained inl bi . In (4) three known elements from the acceleration measurement a, exist. However, nine unknown variables of 'b; G IR9 are on the right hand side. Assuming Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) convention, the rotation axis of joint z , i.e. JNi, is its z-axis. Therefore, '
ώx , ' ώy , ‘ ώx , and ' yg are the same for two adjacent joints. This can simply be written as:
When (4) is preferably applied recursively from the first link LNKi=1 to the last one of LNKj , ώx , ' ώy , ‘ ώx , andi wy are also known. By inserting these elements into 'b,. of (4) it will turn into a linear system of equations with two variables, namely the joint acceleration q, and q,2 . Since the structure matrix determines the coefficients of this linear system of equations, its condition number is of significance. Obviously,i Ci .(i XS, i ) is a function of the sensor position and it can be shown that as long as the sensor is not placed on the rotation axis of the matrix is well conditioned and, b can be computed.)
Barnehama and Spenninger are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the recursive algorithm of Spenninger.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the recursive method taught in Spenninger.
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Barnehama and Spenninger teaches: The robotic system recited in claim 16,
Barnehama further discloses: wherein the [recursive] estimation algorithm is configured to statistically optimize the estimated position given the most recently obtained encoder values and IMU data and a previous best estimate of the estimated position. ([0096] the communications hardware 226 (in conjunction with the communications hardware 128) may manage the transfer of a packet of data from the joint 108 to the system-level compute hardware 124 at a rate that is greater than 1 kilohertz (e.g., between 1 kilohertz and 100 kilohertz). This packet of data may include the position of the joint 108 (as output from the shaft encoder 222), the velocity of the joint 108 (represented by a time derivative of the output of the shaft encoder 222), the acceleration of the joint 108 (represented by the second time derivative of the output of the shaft encoder 222), a counter (representative of a timestamp, incremented at a clock frequency of the joint-level compute hardware 210, used to align timestamps through the robotic system 100 with a timestamp of the system-level compute hardware 124), status flags, the error in a control loop (as discussed below with reference to FIG. 21), the current to the motor 212, acceleration and velocity data output from a multi-axis IMU (which may provide the accelerometer 224, as discussed above), the output of one or more temperature sensors included in the other hardware 227 of the joint (discussed below), and other data, as desired. The data in this packet may be assembled by the joint-level compute hardware 210 (e.g., a microcontroller) and provided to the communications hardware 226 (e.g., to a USB hub via a Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter (UART) interface of the joint-level compute hardware 210 through a UART to USB module included in the communications hardware 226). The system-level compute hardware 124 may use this data to control the operation of the robotic apparatus 101, as suitable and as discussed herein.)
Spenninger further teaches: recursive ([pg. 6, lines 5-15] Equation (4) is to be solved for ώz and co] , both contained inl bi . In (4) three known elements from the acceleration measurement a, exist. However, nine unknown variables of 'b; G IR9 are on the right hand side. Assuming Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) convention, the rotation axis of joint z , i.e. JNi, is its z-axis. Therefore, '
ώx , ' ώy , ‘ ώx , and ' yg are the same for two adjacent joints. This can simply be written as:
When (4) is preferably applied recursively from the first link LNKi=1 to the last one of LNKj , ώx , ' ώy , ‘ ώx , andi wy are also known. By inserting these elements into 'b,. of (4) it will turn into a linear system of equations with two variables, namely the joint acceleration q, and q,2 . Since the structure matrix determines the coefficients of this linear system of equations, its condition number is of significance. Obviously,i Ci .(i XS, i ) is a function of the sensor position and it can be shown that as long as the sensor is not placed on the rotation axis of the matrix is well conditioned and, b can be computed. )
Barnehama and Spenninger are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the recursive algorithm of Spenninger.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the recursive method taught in Spenninger.
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Barnehama and Spenninger teaches: The robotic system recited in claim 16,
Spenninger further teaches: wherein the recursive estimation algorithm comprises a filter configured to fuse the encoder values with the IMU data. ([pg. 14-15, lines 24-4] A second unit, wherein the second unit is configured to determine and to provide filtered values qi of the joint angle q, and/or filtered values q, of angular joint velocity q, and/or filtered values q; of angular joint acceleration q, by applying a filter model to the joint angle q, and the angular joint velocity q, and angular joint acceleration
q, . In the ideal case without noise or sensor bias distorting the acceleration measurements,i bj can simply be obtained by inverting the structure matrix and multiplying it to the sensor output. However, even in the ideal case,i b itself is not of direct interest, as it contains only angular acceleration and squared values or products of angular velocities, not joint acceleration q, and velocity q, . For additional fusion with the available joint position measurement q, , considering the filtering of noise as well as estimating the unknown sensor bias (or slow drifts), filtering is taken into account based on two different kinematic models. Note that the subsequently mentioned filters could be one of various schemes such as Kalman filters, or extended Kalman filters, or unscented Kalman filters.)
Barnehama and Spenninger are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the recursive algorithm of Spenninger.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the recursive method taught in Spenninger.
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Barnehama and Spenninger teaches: The robotic system recited in claim 18,
Spenninger further teaches: wherein the filter comprises a variable trust statistical filter that produces an estimated position of the working portion. ([pg. 14-15, lines 24-4] A second unit, wherein the second unit is configured to determine and to provide filtered values qi of the joint angle q, and/or filtered values q, of angular joint velocity q, and/or filtered values q; of angular joint acceleration q, by applying a filter model to the joint angle q, and the angular joint velocity q, and angular joint acceleration, . In the ideal case without noise or sensor bias distorting the acceleration measurements,i bj can simply be obtained by inverting the structure matrix and multiplying it to the sensor output. However, even in the ideal case,i b itself is not of direct interest, as it contains only angular acceleration and squared values or products of angular velocities, not joint acceleration q, and velocity q, . For additional fusion with the available joint position measurement q, , considering the filtering of noise as well as estimating the unknown sensor bias (or slow drifts), filtering is taken into account based on two different kinematic models. Note that the subsequently mentioned filters could be one of various schemes such as Kalman filters, or extended Kalman filters, or unscented Kalman filters.)
Barnehama and Spenninger are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the recursive algorithm of Spenninger.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the recursive method taught in Spenninger.
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Barnehama and Spenninger teaches: The robotic system recited in claim 18,
Spenninger further teaches: wherein the filter is configured to bias the estimated position based on at least one of historical data and task- specific information comprising sensor noise, calibration, operating conditions, and past performance. ([pg. 14-15, lines 24-4] A second unit, wherein the second unit is configured to determine and to provide filtered values qi of the joint angle q, and/or filtered values q, of angular joint velocity q, and/or filtered values q; of angular joint acceleration q, by applying a filter model to the joint angle q, and the angular joint velocity q, and angular joint acceleration
q, . In the ideal case without noise or sensor bias distorting the acceleration measurements,i bj can simply be obtained by inverting the structure matrix and multiplying it to the sensor output. However, even in the ideal case,i b itself is not of direct interest, as it contains only angular acceleration and squared values or products of angular velocities, not joint acceleration q, and velocity q, . For additional fusion with the available joint position measurement q, , considering the filtering of noise as well as estimating the unknown sensor bias (or slow drifts), filtering is taken into account based on two different kinematic models. Note that the subsequently mentioned filters could be one of various schemes such as Kalman filters, or extended Kalman filters, or unscented Kalman filters.)
Barnehama and Spenninger are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the recursive algorithm of Spenninger.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the recursive method taught in Spenninger.
Regarding claim 21: The combination of Barnehama and Spenninger teaches: The robotic system recited in claim 16,
Spenninger further teaches: wherein the controller is configured to execute the algorithm on an iterative basis in real-time to produce the estimated position in real-time. ([pg. 6, lines 5-15] Equation (4) is to be solved for ώz and co] , both contained inl bi . In (4) three known elements from the acceleration measurement a, exist. However, nine unknown variables of 'b; G IR9 are on the right hand side. Assuming Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) convention, the rotation axis of joint z , i.e. JNi, is its z-axis. Therefore, ' ώx , ' ώy , ‘ ώx , and ' yg are the same for two adjacent joints. This can simply be written as: When (4) is preferably applied recursively from the first link LNKi=1 to the last one of LNKj , ώx , ' ώy , ‘ ώx , andi wy are also known. By inserting these elements into 'b,. of (4) it will turn into a linear system of equations with two variables, namely the joint acceleration q, and q,2 . Since the structure matrix determines the coefficients of this linear system of equations, its condition number is of significance. Obviously,i Ci .(i XS, i ) is a function of the sensor position and it can be shown that as long as the sensor is not placed on the rotation axis of the matrix is well conditioned and, b can be computed.)
Barnehama and Spenninger are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the recursive algorithm of Spenninger.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the recursive method taught in Spenninger.
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Barnehama and Spenninger teaches: The robotic system recited in claim 21,
Spenninger further teaches: wherein the estimated position for a current iteration of the algorithm is biased based on an estimated position from a previous iteration of the algorithm. ([pg. 6, lines 5-15] Equation (4) is to be solved for ώz and co] , both contained inl bi . In (4) three known elements from the acceleration measurement a, exist. However, nine unknown variables of 'b; G IR9 are on the right hand side. Assuming Denavit-Hartenberg (D-H) convention, the rotation axis of joint z , i.e. JNi, is its z-axis. Therefore, ' ώx , ' ώy , ‘ ώx , and ' yg are the same for two adjacent joints. This can simply be written as: When (4) is preferably applied recursively from the first link LNKi=1 to the last one of LNKj , ώx , ' ώy , ‘ ώx , andi wy are also known. By inserting these elements into 'b,. of (4) it will turn into a linear system of equations with two variables, namely the joint acceleration q, and q,2 . Since the structure matrix determines the coefficients of this linear system of equations, its condition number is of significance. Obviously,i Ci .(i XS, i ) is a function of the sensor position and it can be shown that as long as the sensor is not placed on the rotation axis of the matrix is well conditioned and, b can be computed.)
Barnehama and Spenninger are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the recursive algorithm of Spenninger.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the recursive method taught in Spenninger.
Regarding claim 23: The combination of Barnehama and Spenninger teaches: The robotic system recited in claim 18,
Spenninger further teaches: wherein the filter comprises a Kalman filter or a particle filter. ([pg. 14-15, lines 24-4] A second unit, wherein the second unit is configured to determine and to provide filtered values qi of the joint angle q, and/or filtered values q, of angular joint velocity q, and/or filtered values q; of angular joint acceleration q, by applying a filter model to the joint angle q, and the angular joint velocity q, and angular joint acceleration q, . In the ideal case without noise or sensor bias distorting the acceleration measurements,i bj can simply be obtained by inverting the structure matrix and multiplying it to the sensor output. However, even in the ideal case,i b itself is not of direct interest, as it contains only angular acceleration and squared values or products of angular velocities, not joint acceleration q, and velocity q, . For additional fusion with the available joint position measurement q, , considering the filtering of noise as well as estimating the unknown sensor bias (or slow drifts), filtering is taken into account based on two different kinematic models. Note that the subsequently mentioned filters could be one of various schemes such as Kalman filters, or extended Kalman filters, or unscented Kalman filters.)
Barnehama and Spenninger are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of robotic end effector control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the joint control method of Barnehama to enable the recursive algorithm of Spenninger.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the joint control method disclosed in Barnehama with the method applied to the recursive method taught in Spenninger.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/ /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Examiner, Art Unit 3658A