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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14, as presented in the amended 12/16/2024 claims, are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 12/16/2024) is a national stage of PCT/EP2023/082071 (filed on 11/16/2023) filed under 35 USC 371. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on DE 2022/130514.7 filed on 11/17/2022. Consulting the attached Espacenet translation to interpret the foreign application, the Examiner finds instant claims 1-14 are adequately supported in DE 2022/130514.7 so that the instant application receives an effective filing date of 11/17/2022. All prior art will be evaluated with respect to this date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 7, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5: The limitation “wherein for at least one arm link, in particular for each arm link, a structure sensor” is indefinite because it is unclear whether “in particular for each arm link” is meant to replace “for at least one arm link” or if “in particular for each arm link” is merely a preferred (but not required) embodiment. The clarity of the claim would benefit from definitely claiming the components which are required.
Claim 5: The limitation “preferably connected to the respective arm link” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the connection to the respective arm link is required since this limitation is framed as a preference. The clarity of the claim would benefit from definitely claiming the components which are required.
Claim 7: The limitation “tool is arranged between the at least one end effector, in particular between each end effector, and the tool” is indefinite because it is unclear whether “in particular between each end effector” is meant to replace “between the at least one end effector” or if “in particular between each end effector” is merely a preferred (but not required) embodiment. The clarity of the claim would benefit from definitely claiming the components which are required.
Claim 12: The limitation “preferably an injection needle connected to the tool as a further end effector” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the injection needle is a required element of the ultrasonic robot since it is merely stated as a preference. The clarity of the claim would benefit from definitely claiming the components which are required.
Claim 13: The limitation “a method for controlling a robot arm, in particular a robot arm-according to claim 1 or an ultrasonic robot according to claim 12” is indefinite because the scope is unclear as to whether any robot can satisfy the claim or if the robot arm actually requires the limitations of claims 1 or 12. The clarity of the claim would benefit from definitely claiming the components which are required.
Claim 14: The limitation “in particular to an overall regulation of the robot arm” is indefinite because “in particular” makes it unclear whether the overall regulation of the robot arm is required or merely identifies non-limiting language of a preferred/intended use. The clarity of the claim would benefit from definitely claiming the components which are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mathematical concepts) without significantly more.
Step 1
The invention in claims 13-14 is to a statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method for controlling a robot arm, which would belong to one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 13 recites abstract ideas in the form of mathematical concepts "defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations" (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (I)).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitation “determining, in particular calculating, interaction forces and/or interaction torques of the robot arm using the detected forces and/or torques” references the formulaic conversion of data into interaction forces as detailed in the specification on page 18.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For the Claim 13 limitations from Step 2A Prong One, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Note that it is unclear if the robot arm in claim 1 or the ultrasonic robot in claim 12 are being positively claimed (see 112(b) rejection of claim 13). Potential elements from claims 1 and 12, if these were required in claim 13, are merely parts of the robot structure and end effectors, which generally link the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and sensors, which are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additional limitations positively recited in claim 13 include a robot arm and a detection of forces or torques. The robot arm generally links the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use while the detection of forces and torques are part of data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 14: Outputting the interaction forces/torques involves information transfer as part of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. It is unclear whether the overall regulation of the robot arm is required (see 112(b) rejection of claim 14), but this could be amended to more definitively link the judicial exception to control/regulation of the robot (i.e. the interaction forces are used to control the robot arm) in order to establish a practical application.
Step 2B
For the Claim 13 limitations from Step 2A Prong One, the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Note that it is unclear if the robot arm in claim 1 or the ultrasonic robot in claim 12 are being positively claimed (see 112(b) rejection of claim 13). Potential elements from claims 1 and 12, if these were required in claim 13, are merely parts of the robot structure and end effectors, which generally link the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and sensors, which are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Additional limitations positively recited in claim 13 include a robot arm and a detection of forces or torques. The robot arm generally links the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use while the detection of forces and torques are part of data gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 14: Outputting the interaction forces/torques involves information transfer as part of insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. It is unclear whether the overall regulation of the robot arm is required (see 112(b) rejection of claim 14).
The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are invoked as parts of the robot arm structure or to generate/transfer data. These elements perform their ordinary function and do not amount to more than measuring and providing raw sensor data (from sensors on the robot structure) which is used to determine interaction forces using the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 13-14 are directed to a judicial exception, as abstract ideas (mathematical concepts), without significantly more.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US 2020/0030991 A1) in view of Albu-Schaffer (US 2007/0120512 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bailey discloses a robot arm (Abstract – “multi-joint positioning arm”; [0061] – a handle on the end effector is used to facilitate manual actuation of the positioning arm), in particular a hands-on robot arm (this is interpreted as non-limiting language specifying an example due to the use of “in particular”), comprising:
• a robot structure (Fig. 5), wherein the robot structure comprises an arm link chain having at least one arm link and at least one joint (Fig. 5, [0058] – the multi-joint positioning arm includes a number of arm segments 508 connected by joints 510), and wherein the robot structure further comprises a tool connected to the arm link chain for connection to at least one end effector (Fig. 6, [0059] – “the FMS 506 is coupled between the distal end of the positioning arm 502 and the end effector 504” where the distal end of the positioning arm serves as a tool to connect to the end effector; [0060] – multiple end-effectors are disclosed);
• at least one end effector sensor for detecting forces and/or torques acting on an end effector connected to the tool ([0059-0060] – multiple end effectors may be attached to the robot arm and the force moment sensors (FMS) measure force/torque from the end effectors).
Bailey describes the positioning of force/torque sensors at the end effector vs. at particular joints in the robotic arm when calculating the forces on an end effector:
Unlike conventional robotic arms, the disclosed methods and systems, in various examples, use a six-axis force/torque sensor approach rather than a joint torque sensor approach. A joint torque sensor approach uses torque sensors in each joint of a multi-joint robotic arm, and use the torques sensed at each joint to calculate forces at the end effector. Such an approach tends to complicate joint design and calculations. Further, it is typically difficult to distinguish whether an external force is being applied at an end effector or at a particular joint. In the disclosed methods and systems, forces/torques applied at the end effector are more directly detected using a FMS located at or close to the end effector, without having to consider the kinematics of each individual joint of the positioning arm. This results in a solution that may have better accuracy, reliability and be less computationally expensive. [0094] (emphasis added)
The structure sensors (as discussed in Specification page 8, lines 4-9) are interpreted as being equivalent to force or torque sensors at the positioning arm joints. Therefore, Bailey does not disclose at least one structure sensor for detecting forces and/or torques acting on the robot structure.
Albu-Schaffer, in the same field of endeavor of detecting torques applied to a robotic arm ([0009]), teaches force/torque sensors 14 (see in Fig. 1) are positioned within the joints of the robotic arm where the robotic arm is attached to an end effector ([0040]). Albu-Schaffer further teaches:
In particular, torque sensors, in contrast to the use of a force moment sensor at the end effector, also measure those forces that do not act on the robot end effector but on the segments of the robot, such as the connecting elements. This implies that it is of no importance whether the robot is guided manually at its end effector flange or another optional point (e.g., the elbow), the manual guiding of the robot arm being allowed by a completely flexible control (based on the above control methods). [0016]
In this case, the individual torque sensors at the joints allow the robot to respond to contact at each joint ([0018] – haptic interaction imposed on robot), rather than only at the end effector, to prevent collisions between arm links ([0021]) and to use impedance control to minimize movements at the arm links from being translated to the end effector ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Bailey’s multi-jointed robotic arm with an end effector force/torque sensor by incorporating the individual robotic arm joint force/torque sensors in Albu-Schaffer. This would have been obvious because both Bailey and Albu-Schaffer discuss measuring forces or torques applied to a robotic arm with an end effector and Albu-Schaffer provides a solution/improvement by allowing the robotic system to distinguish and appropriately respond to forces, particularly those originating from other locations besides the end effector, having an effect on end effector positioning (which would improve force-sensitive control and safety of the hands-on robot arm). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the robotic arm with an end effector sensor for positioning control in Bailey by incorporating the individual robotic arm joint force/torque sensors in Albu-Schaffer to detect and accommodate forces applied to the joints of Bailey.
Regarding Claim 2, the robot arm according to Claim 1 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Bailey discloses wherein the at least one end effector sensor and/or the at least one structure sensor is: a force sensor, a torque sensor or a force-torque sensor with two to six degrees of freedom ([0059-0060] – the end effector sensor is a force-moment sensor, which detects forces and torques applied to the end effector). Note the “and/or” statement in interpreted as only requiring one of the end effector or structure sensors. Bailey discloses the use of a six-axis force/torque sensor to calculate the forces/torques at the end effector ([0094]).
Regarding Claim 3, the robot arm according to Claim 1 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Bailey discloses the arm link chain has a plurality of arm links with respective joints arranged therebetween (Fig. 5, [0058] – the multi-joint positioning arm includes a number of arm segments 508 connected by joints 510).
Regarding Claim 4, the robot arm according to Claim 1 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Baily discloses a multi-joint positioning arm which includes a number of arm segments 508 connected by joints 510 (Fig. 5, [0058]). A force moment sensor is coupled between the distal end of the positioning arm 502, which serves as the tool, and end effector 504, where the distal end of the positioning arm is connected to a more proximal segment 508 via a joint 510 (Fig. 6, [0059]). Bailey does not disclose comprising a structure sensor between tool and arm link chain for detecting forces and/or torques acting on the tool.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Albu-Schaffer yields force/torque sensors 14 (see in Fig. 1) positioned within the joints of the robotic arm to measure forces/torques imparted by contact in each arm segment, where the robotic arm is attached to an end effector ([0040]). In this case, the joint connected to the tool in Bailey can integrate the sensor from Albu-Schaffer to measure forces/torques on the tool connection.
PNG
media_image1.png
616
1366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner modification of Bailey’s Figure 5 showing the
proposed interpretation of elements in claims 4, 8, and 9.
Regarding Claim 5, the robot arm according to Claim 1 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Baily discloses a multi-joint positioning arm which includes a number of arm segments 508 connected by joints 510 (Fig. 5, [0058]). A force moment sensor is coupled between the distal end of the positioning arm 502, which serves as the tool, and end effector 504, where the distal end of the positioning arm is connected to a more proximal segment 508 via a joint 510 (Fig. 6, [0059]). Bailey does not disclose wherein for at least one arm link, in particular for each arm link (see 112(b) rejection), a structure sensor for detecting forces and/or torques acting on the respective arm link is provided, preferably connected to the respective arm link (see 112(b) rejection). In this case, the claim is being interpreted as only requiring “wherein for at least one arm link, a structure sensor for detecting forces and/or torques acting on the respective arm link is provided.”
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Albu-Schaffer yields force/torque sensors 14 (see in Fig. 1) positioned within the joints of the robotic arm to measure forces/torques imparted by contact in each arm segment, where the robotic arm is attached to an end effector ([0040]).
Regarding Claim 6, the robot arm according to Claim 1 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Bailey discloses further comprising at least one end effector detachably or non-detachably connected to the tool (Fig. 6, [0059] – “the FMS 506 is coupled between the distal end of the positioning arm 502 and the end effector 504” where the distal end of the positioning arm serves as a tool to connect to the end effector; [0059-0060] – multiple end effectors may be attached to the robot arm, connected by intermediate force moment sensors which measure force/torque).
Regarding Claim 7, the robot arm according to Claim 6 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Bailey discloses wherein an end effector sensor for detecting forces and/or torques acting on the tool is arranged between the at least one end effector, in particular between each end effector (see 112(b) rejection), and the tool (Fig. 6, [0059] – “the FMS 506 is coupled between the distal end of the positioning arm 502 and the end effector 504” where the distal end of the positioning arm serves as a tool to connect to the end effector; [0059-0060] – multiple end effectors may be attached to the robot arm, connected by intermediate force moment sensors which measure force/torque from the end effectors).
Regarding Claim 8, the robot arm according to Claim 1 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Bailey discloses further comprising a tool interface arranged between the arm link chain and the tool for connecting the tool to the tool interface (Fig. 5-6, [0059] – “the FMS 506 is coupled between the distal end of the positioning arm 502 and the end effector 504” where the distal end of positioning arm serves as a tool to connect to the end effector and this tool is connected to a more proximal segment 508 via a joint 510 interface as detailed in [0058]), in particular in a detachable manner. Note that “in particular in a detachable manner” is interpreted as a non-limiting example embodiment.
Regarding Claim 9, the robot arm according to Claim 8 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Baily discloses a multi-joint positioning arm which includes a number of arm segments 508 connected by joints 510 (Fig. 5, [0058]). A force moment sensor is coupled between the distal end of the positioning arm 502, which serves as the tool, and end effector 504, where the distal end of the positioning arm is connected to a more proximal segment 508 via a joint 510 (Fig. 5-6, [0058-0059]). Bailey does not disclose wherein a structure sensor for detecting forces and/or torques acting on the tool interface is arranged between the arm link chain and the tool interface.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Albu-Schaffer yields force/torque sensors 14 (see in Fig. 1) positioned within the joints of the robotic arm to measure forces/torques imparted by contact in each arm segment, where the robotic arm is attached to an end effector ([0040]). In this case, the joint connected to the tool in Bailey can integrate the sensor from Albu-Schaffer to measure forces/torques acting on the tool interface.
Regarding Claim 10, the robot arm according to Claim 1 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Bailey discloses further comprising a control unit for controlling the robot arm (Fig 3, control and processing unit 300; [0044-0046] – control and processing unit 300 controls the processing engines 370 listed in [0046]), wherein the control unit is configured for receiving and in particular processing the forces and/or torques detected by the end effector sensor ([0068-0073] – describes the controller processing the force and torque originating from the FMS connected to the end effector). Bailey does not disclose a structure sensor. Note “in particular” is interpreted in view of the specification (page 9) as merely placing emphasis on the positively recited processing function.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Albu-Schaffer yields force/torque sensors 14 (see in Fig. 1) positioned within the joints of the robotic arm to measure forces/torques imparted by contact in each arm segment (making these equivalent to the structure sensors in the claim language) ([0040]). The individual torque sensors at the joints allow the robot to respond to haptic contact at each joint ([0018]), rather than only at the end effector, to prevent collisions between arm links ([0021]) and to use impedance control to minimize movements at the arm links from being translated to the end effector ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 11, the robot arm according to Claim 10 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Bailey discloses wherein the robot structure has at least one virtual fixture ([0070] – the force and torque readings of the FMS at step 706 are used by the controller to determine drive velocity to provide “a damping effect may be implemented to ensure smooth motion of the end effector 504”), in particular for restricting and/or damping the movement of the robot arm (Note this is interpreted as a non-limiting example of an intended use of the virtual fixture, although the controller in Bailey has been shown to exert a damping effect based on force or torque readings), the control unit being configured for adjusting the at least one virtual fixture on the basis of the forces and/or torques detected by the end effector sensor ([0070], [0084] – the drive velocities are determined by the controller based on force and torque measurements where “any damping (e.g., to achieve smoother motion) or other physical constraints (e.g., avoiding self-collision) may be taken into account when calculating joint movements” [0084]). Bailey does not disclose a structure sensor.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Albu-Schaffer yields force/torque sensors 14 (see in Fig. 1) positioned within the joints of the robotic arm to measure forces/torques imparted by contact in each arm segment (making these equivalent to the structure sensors in the claim language) ([0040]). The individual torque sensors at the joints allow the robot to respond to haptic contact at each joint ([0018]), rather than only at the end effector, to prevent collisions between arm links ([0021]) and to use impedance control to minimize movements at the arm links from being translated to the end effector ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bailey discloses an ultrasonic robot ([0002] – robotic positioning arm with an ultrasound sensor) comprising:
• a robot arm according to claim 1 (see claim 1, which was rejected over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer)
• an ultrasonic transducer connected to the tool as an end effector ([0002] – “a micro ultrasound transducer” is mentioned as a possible end effector, [0035] – the end effector is depicted as an imaging system), and
• preferably an injection needle connected to the tool as a further end effector (see 112(b) rejection – this limitation is presented as a preference and not a requirement).
Regarding Claim 13, Bailey discloses a method for controlling a robot arm (Abstract - method of controlling a robot arm), in particular a robot arm according to claim 1 or an ultrasonic robot according to claim 12 (see 112(b) rejection over whether the claim 1 or claim 12 statement is required, although it should be noted claims 1 and 12 are rejected over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer), comprising the steps of:
• detecting forces and/or torques acting on an end effector of the robot arm ([0059-0060] – multiple end effectors may be attached to the robot arm and the force moment sensors (FMS) measure force/torque from the end effectors).
Bailey describes the positioning of force/torque sensors at the end effector vs. at particular joints in the robotic arm when calculating the forces on an end effector:
Unlike conventional robotic arms, the disclosed methods and systems, in various examples, use a six-axis force/torque sensor approach rather than a joint torque sensor approach. A joint torque sensor approach uses torque sensors in each joint of a multi-joint robotic arm, and use the torques sensed at each joint to calculate forces at the end effector. Such an approach tends to complicate joint design and calculations. Further, it is typically difficult to distinguish whether an external force is being applied at an end effector or at a particular joint. In the disclosed methods and systems, forces/torques applied at the end effector are more directly detected using a FMS located at or close to the end effector, without having to consider the kinematics of each individual joint of the positioning arm. This results in a solution that may have better accuracy, reliability and be less computationally expensive. [0094] (emphasis added)
The structure sensors (as discussed in Specification page 8, lines 4-9) are interpreted as being equivalent to force or torque sensors at the positioning arm joints. A controller determines one or more external forces or torques (equivalent to interaction forces/torques) applied to the end effector ([0069-0070]). However, Bailey does not disclose:
• detecting forces and/or torques acting on a robot structure of the robot arm,
• determining, in particular calculating, interaction forces and/or interaction torques of the robot arm using the detected forces and/or torques (Note “in particular calculating” is reasonably interpreted as non-limiting language showing an example manner of determining and not a requirement as a type of determining).
Albu-Schaffer, in the same field of endeavor of detecting torques applied to a robotic arm ([0009]), teaches force/torque sensors 14 (see in Fig. 1) are positioned within the joints of the robotic arm where the robotic arm is attached to an end effector ([0040]). Albu-Schaffer further teaches:
In particular, torque sensors, in contrast to the use of a force moment sensor at the end effector, also measure those forces that do not act on the robot end effector but on the segments of the robot, such as the connecting elements. This implies that it is of no importance whether the robot is guided manually at its end effector flange or another optional point (e.g., the elbow), the manual guiding of the robot arm being allowed by a completely flexible control (based on the above control methods). [0016]
In this case, the individual torque sensors at the joints allow the robot to respond to contact at each joint ([0018] – haptic interaction imposed on robot), rather than only at the end effector, to prevent collisions between arm links ([0021]) and to use impedance control to minimize movements at the arm links from being translated to the end effector ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Bailey’s multi-jointed robotic arm with an end effector force/torque sensor by incorporating the individual robotic arm joint force/torque sensors in Albu-Schaffer. This would have been obvious because both Bailey and Albu-Schaffer discuss measuring forces or torques applied to a robotic arm with an end effector and Albu-Schaffer provides a solution/improvement by allowing the robotic system to distinguish and appropriately respond to forces, particularly those originating from other locations besides the end effector, having an effect on end effector positioning (which would improve force-sensitive control and safety of the hands-on robot arm). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the robotic arm with an end effector sensor for positioning control in Bailey by incorporating the individual robotic arm joint force/torque sensors in Albu-Schaffer to detect and accommodate forces applied to the joints of Bailey.
Regarding Claim 14, the method for controlling a robot arm according to Claim 13 is obvious over Bailey in view of Albu-Schaffer, as indicated hereinabove. Bailey discloses comprising the further step of:
• outputting the interaction forces and/or interaction torques ([0069] – the controller calculates a force/torque imparted via contact by subtracting internal forces, [0070] – these contact forces are used to determine control velocities for the robot arm), in particular to an overall regulation of the robot arm (see 112(b) rejection where it is unclear whether the “in particular” statement is required). Note that the controller in Bailey has been shown to exert a regulation of the robot arm based on force or torque readings ([0070]).
However, Bailey does not disclose the interaction forces and/or torques from the robot structure.
As stated in claim 13, the proposed combination with Albu-Schaffer yields force/torque sensors 14 (see in Fig. 1) positioned within the joints of the robotic arm to measure forces/torques imparted by contact in each arm segment ([0040]). The individual torque sensors at the joints allow the robot to respond to haptic contact at each joint ([0018]), rather than only at the end effector, to prevent collisions between arm links ([0021]) and to use impedance control to minimize movements at the arm links from being translated to the end effector ([0022]).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
