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 .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-8 are pending.
The prior art submitted on 11/12/24 has been considered.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A zero calibration method for a robotic arm control, comprising:
adding, based on a first forward kinematics model of a robotic arm of a robot, zero deviations of each joint of the robot to form a second forward kinematics model; and simultaneously solving the second forward kinematics model and the first forward kinematics model to obtain an end deviation function;
sending target end pose instructions to the robotic arm in a current zero point situation, and acquiring a spatial deviation of an actual position of an end;
inputting position information of each joint angle and the spatial deviation, after each stop of motion of the end, into the end deviation function, and performing phase shifting to obtain an objective optimization function; and
solving the objective optimization function to obtain a zero deviation value;
wherein, the sending target end pose instructions to the robotic arm in a current zero point situation, and acquiring a spatial deviation of an actual position of an end specifically comprises:
sending m target end pose instructions to the robotic arm in the current zero point situation; and acquiring the spatial deviation between a position of the end after the sending of each of second to m-th target end pose instructions and after stop of motion of the robotic arm and the actual position of the end after the sending of a first target end pose instruction;
wherein, the end deviation function is specifically:……
wherein, f is a function that characterizes a relationship between values of each joint angle of the robotic arm and a spatial pose of the end; q is an n-dimensional vector, representing the values of each joint angle; p is a 3-dimensional vector, representing the spatial pose of the end based on f, …….
Claim 3. A zero calibration system for a robotic arm control, comprising:
a modeling unit, configured to add, based on a first forward kinematics model of a robotic arm, zero deviations of each joint to form a second forward kinematics model; and simultaneously solve the second forward kinematics model and the first forward kinematics model to obtain an end deviation function;
an acquisition unit, configured to send target end pose instructions to the robotic arm in a current zero point situation, and acquire a spatial deviation of an actual position of an end;
a transform unit, configured to input position information of each joint angle and the spatial deviation, after each stop of motion of the end, into the end deviation function, and perform phase shifting to obtain an objective optimization function; and
a calculation unit, configured to solve the objective optimization function to obtain a zero deviation value;
wherein, the acquisition unit is specifically configured to:
send m target end pose instructions to the robotic arm in the current zero point situation; and acquire the spatial deviation between a position of the end after the sending of each of second to m-th target end pose instructions and after stop of motion of the robotic arm and the actual position of the end after the sending of a first target end pose instruction; and
the end deviation function is specifically:……
wherein, f is a function that characterizes a relationship between values of each joint angle of the robotic arm and a spatial pose of the end; q is an n-dimensional vector, representing the values of each joint angle; p is a 3-dimensional vector, representing the spatial pose of the end based on f, ……
Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method and a system including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes
judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical concepts” and "mental processes" because under it broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be "performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper". See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitations of " adding, zero deviations of each joint”; “simultaneously solve…. to obtain an end deviation function”;
“sending target end pose instructions to the robotic arm in a current zero point situation, and acquire a spatial deviation of an actual position of an end;
“inputting position information of each joint angle and the spatial deviation, after each stop of motion of the end, into the end deviation function, and perform phase shifting to obtain an objective optimization function;
“solving the objective optimization function to obtain a zero deviation value; “sending m target end pose instructions to the robotic arm in the current zero point situation; and acquire the spatial deviation between a position of the end after the sending of each of second to m-th target end pose instructions and after stop of motion of the robotic arm and the actual position of the end after the sending of a first target end pose instruction; and……
“wherein, f is a function that characterizes a relationship between values of each joint angle of the robotic arm and a spatial pose of the end; q is an n-dimensional vector, representing the values of each joint angle; p is a 3-dimensional vector, representing the spatial pose of the end based on f, ……”
limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “a first and second forward kinematics model", “a modeling unit”, “an acquisition unit”, “a transform unit”, “a calculation unit”. That is, other than reciting "a first and second forward kinematics model", “a modeling unit”, “an acquisition unit”, “a transform unit”, “a calculation unit” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “first and second forward kinematics model", “a modeling unit”, “an acquisition unit”, “a transform unit”, “a calculation unit” language, the claim encompasses a user look at data (actual position of an end, joint angle position) and generating a simple calibration for a robot arm controlling. The mere nominal recitation of a processor (modeling unit, acquisition unit, transform unit, calculation unit) does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Accordingly, the claims recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 1019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application." The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites the additional element of “a processor” (first and second kinematics model, modeling unit, acquisition unit, transform unit, calculation unit) that performs the adding, sending, inputting, and solving steps. The adding, sending, inputting, and solving by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the estimate steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (first and second kinematics model, modeling unit, acquisition unit, transform unit, calculation unit)).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ides.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive Concept: -No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claim (s) is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2, and 4-8, the claims do not recite any
further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the
limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the
judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional
elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
For example, claims 2-13, and 16 add the objective optimization function equation, a memory, and a processor which are an abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2, and 4-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1 and 3.
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 1-8, 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.
As per claim 1, it is unclear the following:
Line 5, what is “end deviation function”
Line 6, what is “end pose”. Also, the phrase “current zero point situation” in lines 6, 12, and 14, it is unclear what this current zero point prefers to.
Line 7, what is “actual position of an end”
Line 9, what is “motion of the end”; and it is unclear performing the “phase shifting” of what?
Line 12, what is “target end pose instruction”
Line 13, what is “actual position of an end”
Line 14, what is “end pose instruction”
Line 15, what is “position of the end”
Line 17, what is “actual position of the end”, and “first target end pose instruction”
Line 20, what is “spatial pose of the end”
Line 23, what is “current zero point”, and “ideal zero point”.
Line 24, what is “actual spatial pose of end”, is that prefers to “spatial pose of the end” in line 20?
A per claims 2, and 4, it is unclear what is “spatial pose of the end”, and what is “current zero point” and “ideal zero point”.
Claim 3, has all the same limitations of claim 1 rejected as above. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected the same logic as claim 1 above.
Claims 5 and 7 depended on claim 1 rejected as above.
Claims 6 and 8 depended on claim 2 rejected as above.
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: "a modeling unit”, “an acquisition unit”, “a transform unit”, “a calculation unit” (claim 3). These limitations use the generic placeholder "unit" with the functional language "configured to". 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.
A review of the specification has shown the following corresponding
structure: specification paragraph [0018-0021] describe the unit.
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-A1A 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
. Uruma et al. (US 2024/0198534 A1)
. Gebauer et al. (US 2024/0189987 A1)
. Meglan et al. (US 2023/0111360A1)
. Huang et al. (US 2022/0009095 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALENA TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-5PM.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached at 571-270-5376. 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.
/DALENA TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657