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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/09/2024 and 2/11/2026 have been considered and are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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: “opening angle calculation unit”, “load calculation unit”, “stiffness matrix determination unit”, and “deflection amount calculation unit” in claim 1. Support for these “units” can be found within the specification, specifically in Para. [0008-0009], units are disclosed as hardware or a combination of hardware and software.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2 and 6-9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,613,004 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Claim 1 of USP – 11,613,004
Claim 1 of US Application 18/872,981
A deflection amount estimating device for estimating an amount of deflection of a four bar linkage structure part of a robotic arm comprised a plurality of links coupled to each other via joints, the robotic arm including the four bar linkage structure part configured to swing in a given angle range, the deflection amount estimating device comprising: calculate a swing angle of the four bar linkage structure part;
calculate a load received by the four bar linkage structure part; determine a stiffness value, corresponding to the swing angle of the four-bar linkage structure part, based on a stiffness-value determining function indicating a correlation between the stiffness value and the swing angle of the four bar linkage structure part, the stiffness value indicating a value of each element in a stiffness matrix associating the load received by the four bar linkage structure part; calculate the amount of deflection of the four bar linkage structure part based on the load received by the four bar linkage structure part and the stiffness matrix having stiffness value elements.
A deflection amount estimation device for estimating a deflection amount of a two-degree-of-freedom link structure portion including a plurality of rotation pairs of a robot arm in which a plurality of links including the link structure portion are connected by joints, comprising: an opening angle calculation unit configured to calculate an opening angle that is an angle formed by one link of the link structure portion pivoting about a reference axis which is an axis of one rotation pair of the link structure portion, and another link of the link structure portion pivoting about the reference axis; a load calculation unit configured to calculate a load to which the link structure portion receives; a stiffness matrix determination unit configured to determine, by using a stiffness value decision function representing a correlation between a stiffness value and the opening angle of the link structure portion, the stiffness value corresponding to the opening angle of the link structure portion calculated by the opening angle calculation unit, the stiffness value being a value of each of components of a stiffness matrix that associates the load to which the link structure portion receives with the deflection amount of the link structure portion; and a deflection amount calculation unit configured to calculate the deflection amount of the link structure portion based on the load which is calculated by the load calculation unit and to which the link structure portion receives, and the stiffness matrix having the stiffness values determined by the stiffness matrix determination unit as the components.
Claim 2 of USP – 11,613,004
Claim 2 of US Application 18/872,981
wherein the four bar linkage structure part has a closed linkage structure.
wherein the link structure portion is a five-bar link having a closed loop structure
Claim 4 of USP – 11,613,004
Claim 6 of US Application 18/872,981
acquiring the stiffness value corresponding to each of a plurality of different swing angles by an analysis in advance, and linearly interpolating the stiffness values acquired by the analysis corresponding to the plurality of swing angles.
the stiffness value decision function is a function obtained by acquiring the respective stiffness values corresponding to a plurality of the opening angles different from one another in advance by analysis, and linearly interpolating the stiffness values acquired by the analysis and corresponding to the plurality of opening angles
Claim 5 of USP – 11,613,004
Claim 8 of US Application 18/872,981
A robot control device comprising the robotic arm including the four bar linkage structure part; and the deflection amount estimating device.
A robot control device comprising the deflection amount estimation device.
Claims 7 and 9 recite analogous limitations to claim 1 above and are therefore also rejected for nonstatutory double patenting.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuno et al. (US 2021/0053238; hereinafter Okuno).
Regarding Claim 1:
Okuno discloses a deflection amount estimation device for estimating a deflection amount of a two-degree-of-freedom link structure portion including a plurality of rotation pairs of a robot arm in which a plurality of links including the link structure portion are connected by joints (Okuno, Para. [0011], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a deflection amount estimation device for estimating the deflection amount for a linkage structure connected by joints), comprising:
an opening angle calculation unit configured to calculate an opening angle that is an angle formed by one link of the link structure portion pivoting about a reference axis which is an axis of one rotation pair of the link structure portion, and another link of the link structure portion pivoting about the reference axis (Okuno, Para. [0041], Okuno discloses an angle calculating module for calculating the angle of the lower arm structure on the angular position of the driving link);
a load calculation unit configured to calculate a load to which the link structure portion receives (Okuno, Para. [0042], Okuno discloses a load calculating module configured to calculate the load received by the link structure);
a stiffness matrix determination unit configured to determine, by using a stiffness value decision function representing a correlation between a stiffness value and the opening angle of the link structure portion, the stiffness value corresponding to the opening angle of the link structure portion calculated by the opening angle calculation unit, the stiffness value being a value of each of components of a stiffness matrix that associates the load to which the link structure portion receives with the deflection amount of the link structure portion (Okuno, Para. [0043-0045], Okuno discloses a stiffness matrix determining module configured to determine a stiffness value corresponding to the angle of the link structure, with the stiffness value being components of the stiffness matrix associated with the applied load); and
a deflection amount calculation unit configured to calculate the deflection amount of the link structure portion based on the load which is calculated by the load calculation unit and to which the link structure portion receives, and the stiffness matrix having the stiffness values determined by the stiffness matrix determination unit as the components (Okuno, Para. [0047], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a deflection amount estimation device for estimating the deflection amount for a linkage structure based on the load received and calculated stiffness value).
Regarding Claim 2:
Okuno discloses the deflection amount estimation device according to claim 1.
Okuono further discloses wherein the link structure portion is a five-bar link having a closed loop structure (Okuno, Para. [0005], Okuno discloses the link structure portion is a closed four bar linkage coupled to at least a robotic arm (fifth bar link) and support link (fifth bar link)).
Regarding Claim 3:
Okuno discloses the deflection amount estimation device according to claim 1.
Okuono further discloses the link structure portion includes: a first drive link that is the one link (Okuno, Fig.1, Okuno discloses a first drive link (element 32));
a second drive link that is the another link (Okuno, Fig.1, Okuno discloses a drive link (element 33));
a first driven link (Okuno, Fig.1, Okuno discloses a first driven link (element 34));
a second driven link (Okuno, Fig.1, Okuno discloses a driven link (parallel to element 34));
a first drive shaft that supports the first drive link to be pivotable about the reference axis (Okuno, Para. [0028], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a first drive shaft coupled to the first drive link);
a second drive shaft that supports the second drive link to be pivotable about the reference axis (Okuno, Para. [0027], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a secondary drive shaft coupled to the second coupling axis);
a first connecting shaft that connects the second drive link and the first driven link to be pivotable (Okuno, Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a first coupling link (element 36) between the first and second driven link);
a second connecting shaft that connects the first drive link and the second driven link to be pivotable (Okuno, Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a second coupling link (element 37) between the first and second driven link); and
a third connecting shaft that connects the first driven link and the second driven link to be pivotable (Okuno, Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a first coupling link (element 38) between the first and second driven link); and
the deflection amount estimation device further comprises: a first drive unit configured to drive the first drive link to swing about the first drive shaft (Okuno, Para. [0028], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a first drive shaft coupled to the first drive link; and
a second drive unit configured to drive the second drive link to swing about the second drive shaft (Okuno, Para. [0027], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a secondary drive shaft coupled to the second coupling axis).
Regarding Claim 4:
Okuno discloses the deflection amount estimation device according to claim 3.
Okuono further discloses the link structure portion further includes a support link (Okuno, Para. [0027], Okuno discloses a base support joint),
the first drive shaft connects the support link and the first drive link to be pivotable about the reference axis (Okuno, Para. [0028], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a first drive shaft coupled to the first drive link with the support link connected to the first drive link and rotatable around the reference axis), and
the second drive shaft connects the support link and the second drive link to be pivotable about the reference axis (Okuno, Para. [0027], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses a second drive shaft coupled to the second drive link with the support link connected to the second drive link and rotatable around the reference axis).
Regarding Claim 5:
Okuno discloses the deflection amount estimation device according to claim 3.
Okuono further discloses the first drive shaft, the second drive shaft, the first connecting shaft, the second connecting shaft, and the third connecting shaft are parallel to one another (Okuno, Para. [0024-0027], Fig. 1, Okuno discloses the linkage structure is a parallel-linkage structure)
a distance between the first drive shaft and the second connecting shaft is equal to a distance between the first connecting shaft and the third connecting shaft (Okuno, Para. [0027], Okuno discloses the distances between the first coupling axis and second coupling axis sis the same distances as between the third coupling axis and fourth coupling axis), and
a distance between the second drive shaft and the first connecting shaft is equal to a distance between the second connecting shaft and the third connecting shaft (Okuno, Para. [0027], Okuno discloses the distances between the first coupling axis and second coupling axis sis the same distances as between the third coupling axis and fourth coupling axis).
Regarding Claim 6:
Okuno discloses the deflection amount estimation device according to claim 1.
Okuono further discloses the stiffness value decision function is a function obtained by acquiring the respective stiffness values corresponding to a plurality of the opening angles different from one another in advance by analysis, and linearly interpolating the stiffness values acquired by the analysis and corresponding to the plurality of opening angles (Okuno, Para. [0018], Okuno discloses the stiffness value determining function is obtained by acquiring the stiffness value for each of a plurality of calculated angles, and linearly interpolating the stiffness values acquired by the analysis and corresponding angles).
Regarding Claim 7:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding Claim 8:
Okuno discloses the deflection amount estimation device according to claim 1.
Okuono further discloses comprising the deflection amount estimation device according to claim 1 (Okuno, Para. [0020], Okuno discloses a robot control device includes the deflection amount estimating device).
Regarding Claim 9:
The claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi et al. (US 2021/0220083) – discloses a five bar linkage structure with two degrees of freedom configured for a medical robotic arm assembly. However Yi does not explicitly disclose, at least, “a stiffness matrix determination unit configured to determine, by using a stiffness value decision function representing a correlation between a stiffness value and the opening angle of the link structure portion, the stiffness value corresponding to the opening angle of the link structure portion calculated by the opening angle calculation unit, the stiffness value being a value of each of components of a stiffness matrix that associates the load to which the link structure portion receives with the deflection amount of the link structure portion”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH WALLACE whose telephone number is (469)295-9087. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/Z.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights