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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Applicant’s specification lacks antecedent basis for term “high order derivative spline”.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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 autoprocessed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal disclaimer.
Claims 35-54 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-9, 11-16 and 36-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12,168,300. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Specifically wherein;
Regarding claim 35, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the U.S. Patent, where both of the respective claims include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system of a robot, a first representation of an initial state of at least a portion of the robot and a second representation of a goal state of the at least a portion of the robot;
determining, by the computing system (nonlinear solver implemented by the computing system in US Patent), using the first representation, the second representation, and nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state;
determining, by the computing system, whether the candidate trajectory is feasible; and
controlling, by the computing system, when it is determined that the candidate trajectory is feasible, the at least a portion of the robot to move though the candidate trajectory.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the Reference Application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 36-53, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1, 3-9, 11-15 and 35-40 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex Parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the issued U.S. Patent, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claim 54, Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 16 of the U.S. Patent, where both of the respective claims include (similar limitations provided in bold):
A computing system of a robot comprising:
data processing hardware; and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first representation of an initial state of at least a portion of the robot and a second representation of a goal state of the at least a portion of the robot;
determining using the first representation, the second representation, and nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state;
determining whether the candidate trajectory is feasible; and
controlling, when it is determined that the candidate trajectory is feasible, the at least a portion of the robot to move though the candidate trajectory.
Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the Reference Application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
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.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 49, Claim 49 recites “wherein the candidate trajectory includes a plurality of successive segments, and wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises connecting the plurality of successive segments using a high order derivative spline, wherein an order of the high order derivative spline is determined based, at least in part, on one or more of the plurality of successive segments.” Examiner submits that the first wherein clause “wherein the candidate trajectory includes a plurality of successive segments” makes the claim unclear and indefinite. Examiner submits that it is being claimed that the candidate trajectory includes a plurality of successive segments, then it is determining the candidate trajectory in the second wherein clause based on the successive segments. Examiner notes that the way claim 49 is recited, is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, examiner will examine/interpret the claim as “wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises connecting the plurality of successive segments using a high order derivative spline, wherein an order of the high order derivative spline is determined based, at least in part, on one or more of the plurality of successive segments.”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is earnestly solicited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 35-37, 40, 42, 46, 48, 50 and 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac (US 2021/0291362 A1) in view of Raghunathan (WO 2021/065196 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Pivac teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by a computing system of a robot, a first representation of an initial state of at least a portion of the robot and a second representation of a goal state of the at least a portion of the robot [(see at least paragraph 17) “the control system: determines an end effector path extending to an end effector destination; generates robot control signals to control movement of the end effector; applies the robot control signals to the robot arm to cause the end effector to be moved.”];
Pivac teaches determining, by the computing system, whether the candidate trajectory is feasible [(see at least paragraph 204) “The control signals are typically generated taking into account an end effector velocity profile, robot dynamics and/or robot kinematics. This is performed to ensure that the robot arm is able to perform the necessary motion. For example, a calculated end effector path could exceed the capabilities of the robot arm, for example requiring a change in movement that is not feasible, or requiring movement at a rate that cannot be practically achieved. In this instance, the path can be recalculated to ensure it can be executed.”]; and controlling, by the computing system, when it is determined that the candidate trajectory is feasible, the at least a portion of the robot to move though the candidate trajectory. [(see at least paragraphs 204-205) As in 204 “This is performed to ensure that the robot arm is able to perform the necessary motion. For example, a calculated end effector path could exceed the capabilities of the robot arm, for example requiring a change in movement that is not feasible, or requiring movement at a rate that cannot be practically achieved. In this instance, the path can be recalculated to ensure it can be executed.” As in 205 “this can be achieved by performing a movement that corresponds to the original planned movement, but which is limited in magnitude to a feasible movement. In this instance, if further movement is required, this can be implemented in successive processing cycles.”]
Pivac does not explicitly teach determining, by the computing system, using the first representation, the second representation, and nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state.
However, Raghunathan teaches determining, by the computing system, using the first representation, the second representation, and nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state [(see at least paragraph 18) “Wherein the computing system is configured to receive inputs including sensor data, robot operation and dynamics (ROD) data, a multi-link dynamics (MLD) model, a nonlinear optimization (NLO) program and an objective function. Determine trajectories including a path with a starting pose and an ending pose over a sequence of time intervals while satisfying dynamic constraints and geometric constraints on a robot arm, the robot arm is connected to a robot drive having motors for moving the robot arm. Determine the dynamic constraints based on dynamics of each link from the ROD data. Determine the geometric constraints as a first-order differentiable function by generating a coordinate grid of an environment from the sensor data, to determine Cartesian coordinates of at least one obstacle and end-points of each link.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Raghunathan of determining, by the computing system, using the first representation, the second representation, and nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state in order to determine trajectories including a path with a starting pose and an ending pose over a sequence of time intervals while satisfying dynamic constraints and geometric constraints on a robot. [(Raghunathan 18)]
Regarding claim 36, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 35 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach further comprising: determining, by computing system, when the candidate trajectory is not feasible, a different candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state, the nonlinear optimization using one or more changed parameters.
However, Rughunathan teaches further comprising: determining, by computing system, when the candidate trajectory is not feasible, a different candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state, the nonlinear optimization using one or more changed parameters. [(see at least paragraphs 12-16) As in 12 “However, several tests during experimentation often resulted in infeasible trajectories or trajectories which were sub-optimal and later realized to be infeasible for the dynamics. What was gained or learned, was that because the kinematic planning module did not consider the dynamics, this resulted in the planning module that was not being aware of the dynamics and the control saturation limits of the system. This resulted in trajectories that saturated the control limits of the system or resulted in dynamically non-smooth (i.e., the robot often experienced a very high acceleration during movement) which proved to be undesirable.” As in 13 “In order to avoid collisions with obstacles, an optimization algorithm needs to ensure that the minimum distance of each of the links from all obstacles is always positive during the motion of the links. Since all the non-linear optimization techniques use the gradient information of the all the constraints, the non- differentiability of the geometric constraint makes it infeasible to be used with most of the non-linear optimization techniques”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Raghunathan of determining, by computing system, when the candidate trajectory is not feasible, a different candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state, the nonlinear optimization using one or more changed parameters in order to generate trajectories that are not only feasible with respect to collision avoidance but more importantly optimal with respect to the cost function. [(Raghunathan 16)]
Regarding claim 37, In view of the above combination of references, Pivac further teaches wherein the candidate trajectory includes parameters for each of a plurality of joints corresponding to the at least a portion of the robot. [(see at least paragraph 58) “Robots and CNC machines are programmed in a convenient Cartesian coordinate system, and kinematic transformations are used to convert the Cartesian coordinates to joint positions to move the pose of the robot or CNC machine.”]
Regarding claim 40, In view of the above combination of references, Pivac further teaches wherein determining whether the candidate trajectory is feasible includes determining whether a robot joint limit has been exceeded. [(see at least paragraph 204) “The control signals are typically generated taking into account an end effector velocity profile, robot dynamics and/or robot kinematics. This is performed to ensure that the robot arm is able to perform the necessary motion. For example, a calculated end effector path could exceed the capabilities of the robot arm, for example requiring a change in movement that is not feasible, or requiring movement at a rate that cannot be practically achieved. In this instance, the path can be recalculated to ensure it can be executed.”] Examiner notes wherein the effector path could exceed the capabilities for the robot arm is being interpreted as its joint limit being exceeded.
Regarding claim 42, In view of the above combination of references, Pivac further teaches wherein determining whether the candidate trajectory is feasible includes determining whether a collision is predicted based on a projected distance between the at least a portion of the robot and at least one of an object in an environment of the robot, a payload of the robot, or a different portion of the robot. [(see at least paragraphs 217-218) “For example, when calculating a robot base path, the control system can simply acquire an end effector destination and then use this destination, together with the tracking target position, to define the robot base path, causing the robot base to traverse the environment to a position which is suitable for the interaction to be performed. In particular this can be used to align the end effector with the end effector destination, thereby reducing the complexity of the end effector path and the need for significant control of the end effector. Additionally and/or alternatively, this can assist with path planning. For example, path planning and/or tracking of movement of the robot base using a virtual robot base position aligned with the end effector can help avoid collisions of the end effector with the environment or objects or material provided therein.”]
Regarding claim 46, In view of the above combination of references, Pivac further teaches wherein the candidate trajectory reflects at least one of:(i) a robot joint limit constraint; (ii) a trajectory smoothness criterion; or (iii) a collision avoidance constraint. [(see at least paragraphs 217-218) “For example, when calculating a robot base path, the control system can simply acquire an end effector destination and then use this destination, together with the tracking target position, to define the robot base path, causing the robot base to traverse the environment to a position which is suitable for the interaction to be performed. In particular this can be used to align the end effector with the end effector destination, thereby reducing the complexity of the end effector path and the need for significant control of the end effector. Additionally and/or alternatively, this can assist with path planning. For example, path planning and/or tracking of movement of the robot base using a virtual robot base position aligned with the end effector can help avoid collisions of the end effector with the environment or objects or material provided therein.”]
Regarding claim 48, In view of the above combination of references, Pivac further teaches wherein the robot includes a robot arm and the candidate trajectory is used to move at least a portion of the robot arm. [(see at least paragraphs 53,249) “An end effector is a device at the end of a robotic arm designed to interact with the environment. An end effector may include a gripper, nozzle, sand blaster, spray gun, wrench, magnet, welding torch, cutting torch, saw, milling cutter, router cutter, hydraulic shears, laser, riveting tool, or the like, and reference to these examples is not intended to be limiting.” As in 249 “In one example, the system describes dynamic coordinate systems and methods of moving machines and stabilising end effectors. In preferred embodiments, methods of transitioning compensation on and off, or damping transitioning are provided, so that the robot arm moving the end effector may work alternately in a head coordinate system and a ground or work coordinate system.”]
Regarding claim 50, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 35 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises minimizing a variation of derivatives in the nonlinear optimization.
However, Raghunathan teaches wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises minimizing a variation of derivatives in the nonlinear optimization. [(see at least paragraphs 41-49) As in 41 “The geometric constraints are imposed 134 by requiring that the shortest distance between the sphere circumscribing the obstacle and the set of convex combinations of the end points of the robot are larger than the radius of the sphere circumscribing the obstacle. The set of discretized dynamics constraints, the equations modeling the end points of robot and the collision avoidance constraint together form the constraint of the nonlinear optimization program in which an appropriate objective function is minimized 136. The solution of the nonlinear optimization program 136 yields the collision free trajectory for the robot.” As in 49 “The function dist(a, b, v0 ) is indeed the square of the Euclidean distance between the line joining a, b from the point v0 . A key realization of the present disclosure is that the solution of the minimization problem is unique for any choice of (a, b, v0 ).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Pivac to further incorporate the teachings of Raghunathan of determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises minimizing a variation of derivatives in the nonlinear optimization in order to utilize the nonlinear optimization program to yield the collision free trajectory for the robot. [(Raghunathan 41)]
Regarding claim 52, In view of the above combination of references, Pivac further teaches wherein the first representation is a first keyframe and the second representation is a second keyframe. [(see at least paragraph 17-21) As in 21 “In one embodiment the control system: acquires an indication of an end effector destination defined relative to an environment coordinate system; calculates a robot base path extending from a current robot base position at least in part in accordance with the end effector destination; generates robot base control signals based on the robot base path; and, applies the robot base control signals to the robot base actuator to cause the robot base to be moved along the robot base path.”] Examiner notes the first and second keyframes are being interpreted as coordinate points based on applicant’s specification paragraph 6 “In some embodiments, a trajectory has at least two keyframes—one representing an initial state of the robot and one representing a goal state of the robot. In some embodiments, a trajectory has one or more intermediate keyframes. In some embodiments, keyframes are represented by numerical coordinates in joint space (e.g., joint angles). In some embodiments, keyframes are represented by numerical coordinates in “task space” or Cartesian space (e.g., positions and/or orientations)”.
Regarding claim 53, In view of the above combination of references, Pivac further teaches wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises further comprises using at least one intermediate keyframe between the first keyframe and the second keyframe. [(see at least paragraphs 82-90) As in 82 “Thus, the term destination should therefore be interpreted to refer to any particular point at which the end effector is to be positioned and in some examples, a destination could be a static point at which an end effector is to be maintained for a period of time for example while other processes are performed, whereas in other cases the destination could be transitory and correspond to a point on a path through which the end effector is to traverse.” As in 87 “At step 320, an end effector path is planned to move the end effector 113 to the destination. The end effector path is typically planned based on a planned or ideal position of the robot base 111 relative to the environment E, for example to take into account movement of the robot base 111 along the robot base path. The end effector path may extend from an expected previous position of an end effector 113, for example at the completion of a previous interaction or other step, or could be calculated in real time based on a current end effector position.” As in 90 “Such motions mean that the robot base may not be provided in an expected or ideal position relative to the environment, for example as a result of the robot base 111 deviating from the calculated robot base path. In this example, by monitoring movement of the robot base 111, such movements can be corrected for, ensuring that the end effector moves correctly along the end effector path to the destination position.”]
Regarding claim 54, Pivac teaches a computing system of a robot comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations [(see at least paragraph 70) “In the system shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, a control system 130 is provided in communication with the tracking system 120, the robot assembly 110 and the robot base actuator 140, allowing the robot assembly 110 and robot base actuator 140 to be controlled based on signals received from the tracking system. The control system typically includes one or more control processors 131 and one or more memories 132. For ease of illustration, the remaining description will make reference to a processing device and a memory, but it will be appreciated that multiple processing devices and/or memories could be used, with reference to the singular encompassing the plural arrangements and vice versa. In use the memory stores control instructions, typically in the form of applications software, or firmware, which is executed by the processor 131 allowing signals from the tracking system 120 and robot assembly 110 to be interpreted and used to control the robot assembly 110 to allow interactions to be performed.”] comprising: receiving a first representation of an initial state of at least a portion of the robot and a second representation of a goal state of the at least a portion of the robot [(see at least paragraph 17) “the control system: determines an end effector path extending to an end effector destination; generates robot control signals to control movement of the end effector; applies the robot control signals to the robot arm to cause the end effector to be moved.”]
Pivac teaches determining whether the candidate trajectory is feasible [(see at least paragraph 204) “The control signals are typically generated taking into account an end effector velocity profile, robot dynamics and/or robot kinematics. This is performed to ensure that the robot arm is able to perform the necessary motion. For example, a calculated end effector path could exceed the capabilities of the robot arm, for example requiring a change in movement that is not feasible, or requiring movement at a rate that cannot be practically achieved. In this instance, the path can be recalculated to ensure it can be executed.”]; and controlling, when it is determined that the candidate trajectory is feasible, the at least a portion of the robot to move though the candidate trajectory. [(see at least paragraphs 204-205) As in 204 “This is performed to ensure that the robot arm is able to perform the necessary motion. For example, a calculated end effector path could exceed the capabilities of the robot arm, for example requiring a change in movement that is not feasible, or requiring movement at a rate that cannot be practically achieved. In this instance, the path can be recalculated to ensure it can be executed.” As in 205 “this can be achieved by performing a movement that corresponds to the original planned movement, but which is limited in magnitude to a feasible movement. In this instance, if further movement is required, this can be implemented in successive processing cycles.”]
Pivac does not explicitly teach determining using the first representation, the second representation, and nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state.
However, Raghunathan teaches determining using the first representation, the second representation, and nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state [(see at least paragraph 18) “Wherein the computing system is configured to receive inputs including sensor data, robot operation and dynamics (ROD) data, a multi-link dynamics (MLD) model, a nonlinear optimization (NLO) program and an objective function. Determine trajectories including a path with a starting pose and an ending pose over a sequence of time intervals while satisfying dynamic constraints and geometric constraints on a robot arm, the robot arm is connected to a robot drive having motors for moving the robot arm. Determine the dynamic constraints based on dynamics of each link from the ROD data. Determine the geometric constraints as a first-order differentiable function by generating a coordinate grid of an environment from the sensor data, to determine Cartesian coordinates of at least one obstacle and end-points of each link.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Raghunathan of teaches determining using the first representation, the second representation, and nonlinear optimization, a candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state in order to determine trajectories including a path with a starting pose and an ending pose over a sequence of time intervals while satisfying dynamic constraints and geometric constraints on a robot. [(Raghunathan 18)]
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac in view of Raghunathan and in further view of Hosek (US 2003/0108415 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 37 as discussed above.
Pivace does not explicitly teach wherein the parameters include a set of reference torques for the plurality of joints.
However, Hosek teaches wherein the parameters include a set of reference torques for the plurality of joints. [(see at least paragraphs 51-52) “During the run-time calculations, each of the controllers 236, 240, 2436, 2440 separately determines the desired trajectory points, including position, velocity and acceleration for all of the actuators 228, 230, 232, 2428, 2430, 2432 through inverse kinematic equations of the robot manipulator 211. Referring to FIGS. 2, 3 and 24, and in steps 2464, 2466, the trajectory points are fed to feedback motion controllers 2446, 2448 that operate based on a modified computed-torque method to account for dynamic coupling between the members 212, 214, 216 of the robotic manipulator 211.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Hosek of including a set of reference torques for the plurality of joints in order to achieve a smooth motion of the end-effector along the desired path is achieved. [(Hosek 9)]
Regarding claim 39, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 37 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach further comprising: transforming the set of reference torques into a set of actuator commands, wherein controlling the at least a portion of the robot to move through the candidate trajectory comprises controlling actuators associated with the plurality of joints based on the set of actuator commands.
However, Hosek teaches further comprising: transforming the set of reference torques into a set of actuator commands, wherein controlling the at least a portion of the robot to move through the candidate trajectory comprises controlling actuators associated with the plurality of joints based on the set of actuator commands. [(see at least paragraph 55) “In contrast to the conventional computed-torque method, since no run-time data are shared by the two controllers 236, 240, 2436, 2440 in the present strategy, the actual position and velocity of the end-effector 216 in Eq. (0) are replaced by the commanded values on the main controller 240, 2440, and the actual positions and velocities of the upper arm 212 and forearm 214 are substituted by the commanded values on the remote controller 236, 2436. The commanded torques of the motors 228, 230, 232, 2428, 2430, 2432 that drive the robot arm 211, 311 can be obtained from the joint torques {.tau.} through a transformation that needs to reflect the actual motor arrangement in the particular mechanical design at hand (see FIGS. 2 and 3).”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Hosek of transforming the set of reference torques into a set of actuator commands, wherein controlling the at least a portion of the robot to move through the candidate trajectory comprises controlling actuators associated with the plurality of joints based on the set of actuator commands in order to achieve a smooth motion of the end-effector along the desired path is achieved. [(Hosek 9)]
Claims 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac in view of Raghunathan and in further view of Boudreaux (US 2022/0202514 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Modified Pivac has all of the elements as claim 40 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach wherein the robot joint limit includes a padding parameter.
However, Boudreaux teaches wherein the robot joint limit includes a padding parameter. [(see at least paragraph 173) “In certain instances, to avoid bumping the mechanical limit, a control circuit can control the articulation system such that the articulation joint is limited to move within a narrower range of motion than the full articulation range of motion. For example, the mechanical limits of the articulation range of motion can be stored in the memory and/or obtained during a homing operation. The articulation system may effectively reduce the operating range of the articulation joint to less than the full articulation range of motion to maintain a safety zone or range of motion away from the mechanical limit(s). The safety zone can be configured to account for measurement error in the articulation joint during the homing operation and/or variations to the joint over time, for example. A safety zone reduces the available range of motion of the articulation joint and, thus, may unduly limit the articulation range of motion of the robotic surgical tool in certain instances.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Pivac to further incorporate the teachings of Boudreaux of having the robot joint limit include a padding parameter in order to maintain a safety zone or range of motion away from the mechanical limit. [(Boudreaux 173)]
Regarding claim 43, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 42 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach wherein the projected distance is determined based, at least in part, on a padding parameter.
However, Boudreaux teaches wherein the projected distance is determined based, at least in part, on a padding parameter. [(see at least paragraph 173) “In certain instances, to avoid bumping the mechanical limit, a control circuit can control the articulation system such that the articulation joint is limited to move within a narrower range of motion than the full articulation range of motion. For example, the mechanical limits of the articulation range of motion can be stored in the memory and/or obtained during a homing operation. The articulation system may effectively reduce the operating range of the articulation joint to less than the full articulation range of motion to maintain a safety zone or range of motion away from the mechanical limit(s). The safety zone can be configured to account for measurement error in the articulation joint during the homing operation and/or variations to the joint over time, for example. A safety zone reduces the available range of motion of the articulation joint and, thus, may unduly limit the articulation range of motion of the robotic surgical tool in certain instances.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Pivac to further incorporate the teachings of Boudreaux of the projected distance is determined based, at least in part, on a padding parameter in order to maintain a safety zone or range of motion away from the mechanical limit. [(Boudreaux 173)]
Claims 44-45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac in view of Raghunathan and in further view of Ansari (US 2016/0202670 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 35 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises minimizing a cost function of the at least a portion of the robot while satisfying a set of one or more constraints.
However, Ansari teaches wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises minimizing a cost function of the at least a portion of the robot while satisfying a set of one or more constraints. [(see at least Fig.3 and paragraph 43) “FIG. 3 is a graph of an example trajectory optimization 300. The control to drive a single integrator, {dot over (x)}=u, to the origin while minimizing a convex cost, J=∫.sub.0.sup.1∫.sub.0.sup.1 50x(t).sup.2+u.sup.2dt. Solutions to the HJB equations provide an optimal control at any state/time, while trajectory optimization is faster but (generally) yields the optimal control only along a single trajectory (along the black curve) from an initial condition.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Ansari of determining the candidate trajectory includes minimizing a cost function of the at least a portion of the robot while satisfying a set of one or more constraints in order to provide optimal control from any state. [(Ansari 43)]
Regarding claim 45, In view of the above combination of references, Pivac further teaches wherein the set of one or more constraints is applied at one or more times or phases of the candidate trajectory. [(see at least paragraph 194) “Additionally or alternatively, by reducing the number of corrections required, this avoids the end effector path oscillating around a target path to correct for movement of the robot base, which can reduce the need for sharp changes in direction, which can in turn help ensure that the path is within the constraints of the robot dynamics and can hence be more easily achieved.”]
Regarding claim 47, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 35 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises minimizing at least one of: (i) one or more task-space accelerations; (ii) a payload wrench; or (iii) a trajectory time.
However, Ansari teaches wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises minimizing at least one of: (i) one or more task-space accelerations; (ii) a payload wrench; or (iii) a trajectory time. [(see at least paragraphs 42,209) “For reference, results from the cart- pendulum system are compared to the optimal trajectories computed using an implementation of a sequential quadratic programming (SQP) algorithm. The SAC process 100 is able to bypass local minima that cause SQP to converge prematurely. Compared to open-loop trajectories produced by SQP, SAC computes high-bandwidth (feedback at 1,000 Hz) closed-loop trajectories with better final cost in significantly less time (e.g., milliseconds/seconds compared to hours).” As in 209 “SAC process 100 that can exactly recover the analytically optimal bang-bang control solution to the minimum time parking problem on-line and faster than real-time in closed-loop application. Consider the problem of driving a vehicle model from a starting configuration to a goal configuration in minimum time using bounded acceleration.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Ansari of wherein determining the candidate trajectory comprises minimizing a trajectory time in order to ensure the process of trajectory optimization is much faster and scales to systems with state dimension in the tens and possibly even hundreds. [(Ansari 44)]
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac in view of Raghunathan and in further view of Kondapally (US 2022/0297296 A1)
Regarding claim 49, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 35 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach wherein the candidate trajectory includes a plurality of successive segments, and wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises connecting the plurality of successive segments using a high order derivative spline, wherein an order of the high order derivative spline is determined based, at least in part, on one or more of the plurality of successive segments.
However, Kondapally teaches wherein the candidate trajectory includes a plurality of successive segments, and wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises connecting the plurality of successive segments using a high order derivative spline, wherein an order of the high order derivative spline is determined based, at least in part, on one or more of the plurality of successive segments. [(see at least paragraph 55) “In the case of using a high-order spline curve, the trajectory estimation part 36, for example, determines a parameter of the curve so that the angles and angular velocities are continuous with respect to each joint of the robot for each individual division point dividing a section from the current position to the target position into multiple subsections. The number of the subsections is set in advance in the trajectory estimation part 36.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Pivac to incorporate the teachings of Kondapally of candidate trajectory includes a plurality of successive segments, and wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises connecting the plurality of successive segments using a high order derivative spline, wherein an order of the high order derivative spline is determined based, at least in part, on one or more of the plurality of successive segments in order to determine parameters of the curve so that angular velocities are continuous with respect to each joint of the robot. [(Kondapally 55)]
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac in view of Raghunathan and in further view of Graichen (US 2020/0086486 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Modified Pivac has all of the elements of claim 35 as discussed above.
Pivac does not explicitly teach wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises including a regularization term in the nonlinear optimization.
However, Graichen teaches wherein determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises including a regularization term in the nonlinear optimization. [(see at least paragraph 74) “To couple the local planner 36 to the global planner 34, the cost function 62 additionally weights a deviation of the manipulator 14 from the target path as well as a deviation of a current path parameter s, i.e. the current position and/or the current state, from a target parameter s.sub.G specified by the target path.”] Examiner notes that the regularization term is being interpreted as a weight associated to a deviation of the calculated target path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Pivac to further incorporate the teachings of Graichen of determining the candidate trajectory for the at least a portion of the robot to move from the initial state to the goal state comprises including a regularization term in the nonlinear optimization in order to calculate a deviation of the manipulator from the target path. [(Graichen 74)]
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2018/0080841 A1) Cordoba - MULTI-DEGREE OF FREEDOM SENSOR
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656