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
The following claims have been rejected or allowed for the following reasons:
Claim(s) 1-2, 10, 13 is rejected under 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 3-9 and 11-12 is rejected under 35 USC § 103
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/948,695, filed on 5/17/22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement/statements (IDS) were filed on 11/15/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentable over as applied to Kamiguchi (JP 2017209762 A).
Regarding claim 1 Kamiguchi teaches proximal portions of a manipulator, the joint having associated to it a motor for driving rotation thereof, a measurement device for measuring a rotation angle of the motor, a joint controller connected to the motor and to the measurement device for controlling at least the rotation angle of the motor based on input position commands, and a trajectory generator for outputting position commands, the method comprising: a. providing an acceleration sensor in the distal portion; b. selecting a trajectory to be followed by the acceleration sensor; (Kamiguchi page 2 paragraph 6 reads “A robot apparatus according to the present invention includes a robot arm having a plurality of links connected to each other through joint portions, a drive portion that drives each joint portion of the robot arm, a detection portion that detects an operation amount of each joint portion, And the robot having an acceleration sensor provided at the tip of the robot arm, and during the main operation of operating the robot arm based on the operation command value of each joint, the operation amount is set to the operation command value. … The control unit generates a command value generation process for generating the operation command value based on an ideal trajectory of the tip of the robot arm prior to the main operation.”);
c. estimating expected acceleration values to which the sensor is expected to be subject along said trajectory; (Kamiguchi page 4 paragraph 3 reads “ In addition, the HDD 304 stores a storage unit (command value storage unit) 304C that stores an operation command value and a storage unit (ideal value) that stores an ideal value of the force sensor 203 when the tip of the robot arm 201 follows an ideal trajectory. Storage unit) 304D. The HDD 304 includes a storage unit (parameter storage unit) 304E that stores various parameters. The various parameters, which are the joint J i of the maximum angular velocity of the data, data of the maximum angular acceleration of respective joint portions J i, data of the threshold value to be compared of the deviation of the force which will be described later.“);
d. outputting, by the trajectory generator, initial commands for moving the sensor along the trajectory; (Kamiguchi page 2 paragraph 5 reads “A robot apparatus according to the present invention includes a robot arm having a plurality of links connected to each other through joint portions, a drive portion that drives each joint portion of the robot arm, a detection portion that detects an operation amount of each joint portion, And the robot having an acceleration sensor provided at the tip of the robot arm, and during the main operation of operating the robot arm based on the operation command value of each joint, the operation amount is set to the operation command value”);
e. obtaining corrected commands by adding to a parameter specified in an initial command a kinematic error correction, and inputting corrected commands into the joint controller; (Kamiguchi page 4 paragraphs 5 and 6 reads “Then, the deviation of the TCP trajectory due to the first factor is corrected in the pre-operation (S1), and the deviation of the TCP trajectory due to the second factor is corrected in the production operation which is the main operation (S2). … As described above, during the production operation in which the robot arm 201 is operated based on the operation command value of each joint portion J i in step S2, the feedback control that brings the operation amount detected by the encoder 222 i closer to the operation command value. I do. The feedback control value by the feedback control is corrected based on a value detected by the suppressing force sensor 203 the vibration generated in the distal end of the robot arm 201, and controls the motor 221 i by the corrected feedback control value.”);
f. recording acceleration values to which the sensor is subject while moving according to the corrected commands; (Kamiguchi page 4 paragraph 3 reads “The HDD 304 includes a storage unit (parameter storage unit) 304E that stores various parameters. The various parameters, which are the joint J i of the maximum angular velocity of the data, data of the maximum angular acceleration of respective joint portions J i, data of the threshold value to be compared of the deviation of the force which will be described later. These storage units 304A to 304E may be configured by different storage devices, or may have different storage areas in a common storage device, but need to be rewritable storage units.”);
g. judging whether a deviation between the expected acceleration values and the recorded acceleration values exceeds a predetermined threshold, and h. when the deviation is judged to exceed the threshold, modifying the kinematic error correction so as to reduce the deviation. (Kamiguchi page 5 paragraphs 15 and 16 reads “That is, the detection value of the force sensor 203 is detected by a change in the posture of the robot arm 201 due to a link length manufacturing tolerance, an assembly error, an angle error of the joint, and a deflection of the robot arm 201 due to a load applied to the tip of the robot arm 201. Deviates from the ideal value. If the deviation indicating the deviation amount is equal to or less than the threshold value, the TCP can be regarded as following an ideal trajectory. The CPU 301 stores the detection value of the force sensor 203 in the storage unit 304 </ b> A as a load applied to the tip of the robot arm 201. When the deviation exceeds the threshold (S15: No), the CPU 301 corrects the mechanical model, specifically, the link parameter and the load data applied to the tip of the robot arm 201, that is, the mechanical model stored in the storage unit 304A. Rewrite (S16).“);
Regarding claim 2 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the commands are at least one of position commands in which the specified parameter is a position and speed commands, in which the specified parameter is a speed. (Kamiguchi page 3 paragraph 15 reads “ The teaching point can be specified in the task space or joint space, but in the first embodiment, it is specified in the task space. The CPU 301 generates path (interpolation path) data of the robot arm 201 that interpolates between teaching points according to the interpolation method specified by the robot program. Here, as interpolation methods for interpolating between teaching points, there are various methods such as linear interpolation, circular interpolation, Spline interpolation, B-Spline interpolation, and Bezier curve. The route data is a TCP locus of the robot arm 201 in the task space. Orbital data is obtained by adding time parameters such as speed and acceleration to the route data. That is, the trajectory data is represented by a permutation set of position command values (also referred to as target positions) that are TCP positions (including postures) at each time.”);
Regarding claim 10 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 1, wherein steps d. to g. are repeated when the kinematic error correction has been modified in step h. (Kamiguchi page 4 paragraph 5 reads “FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing a method for manufacturing an article by the robot apparatus according to the first embodiment. In the first embodiment, the operation is divided into two stages: a pre-operation that is performed prior to a production operation (main operation) in which production is performed, and a production operation (main operation) in which production is performed. Then, the deviation of the TCP trajectory due to the first factor is corrected in the pre-operation (S1), and the deviation of the TCP trajectory due to the second factor is corrected in the production operation which is the main operation (S2). The preliminary operation does not have to be performed every time the production operation is performed, and may be appropriately performed at the initial startup or maintenance of the As described above, during the production operation in which the robot 200.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that recalibration of a robotic system could also be performed periodically with maintenance of the system.);
Regarding claim 13 Kamiguchi teaches A robotic system, comprising: a manipulator having a proximal portion, a distal portion, a joint connecting the proximal and distal portions and a motor for driving rotation of the joint; a measurement device for measuring a rotation angle of the motor; a controller connected to the motor and to the measurement device for controlling at least a rotation angle of the motor based on input position commands; a trajectory generator for outputting position commands; and an acceleration sensor removably mounted on a distal portion of the manipulator. (Kamiguchi page 2 paragraph 6 reads “A robot apparatus according to the present invention includes a robot arm having a plurality of links connected to each other through joint portions, a drive portion that drives each joint portion of the robot arm, a detection portion that detects an operation amount of each joint portion, And the robot having an acceleration sensor provided at the tip of the robot arm, and during the main operation of operating the robot arm based on the operation command value of each joint, the operation amount is set to the operation command value. … The control unit generates a command value generation process for generating the operation command value based on an ideal trajectory of the tip of the robot arm prior to the main operation.”);
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Kamiguchi (JP 2017209762 A), in further view of Griffiths (US 20200384645 A1).
Regarding claim 3 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 1.
Kamiguchi does not teach wherein in step b) the trajectory is selected so that the expected acceleration values or magnitudes thereof are constant along at least part of the trajectory, and optionally, wherein the trajectory defines an oscillating movement.
Griffiths in analogous art, teaches wherein in step b) the trajectory is selected so that the expected acceleration values or magnitudes thereof are constant along at least part of the trajectory, and optionally, wherein the trajectory defines an oscillating movement. (Griffiths [0019] reads “Each movement profile may consist of a plurality of phases, each phase being characterized by an acceleration function and a respective time interval in which that acceleration function is applied. At least some of the time intervals have nonzero duration. Each phase may be associated with acceleration of a given rate of change. The acceleration in any given phase may be one of three different types: increasing, decreasing, and constant acceleration.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiguchi with that of Griffiths to include a method for computing the generation of a trajectory such that there are discrete sections where important data can be measured. This would allow the system to compute and operate the best trajectory, in which it would receive the most data. (Griffiths [0002] reads “A fundamental problem in robotics is how to calculate the best trajectory for a robot to follow, to move a part, tool, end effector, or other object from a current or starting position to a target position. In many scenarios, it is desirable to plan a smooth trajectory, in order to minimize forces or torques acting on actuators or motors, and reduce wear on mechanical components. At the same time, it is typically necessary to respect certain motion constraints, for the planned trajectory to be physically realizable and acceptable. These constraints may include velocity limits and acceleration limits in each degree of freedom. They may be fixed constraints of the system, or they may be different at different times, for different tasks. (For example, the maximum acceptable velocity and/or acceleration when transporting a full cup of coffee might be lower than when transporting an empty cup.)”);
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Kamiguchi (JP 2017209762 A), in further view of Mao (US 20230311310 A1).
Regarding claim 4 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 1.
Kamiguchi does not teach wherein the kinematic error correction is a weighted sum at least of circular functions of integer multiples of the rotation angle of the motor.
Mao in analogous art, teaches wherein the kinematic error correction is a weighted sum at least of circular functions of integer multiples of the rotation angle of the motor. (Mao [0045 – 0046] reads “The transmission error depends on transmission torque, speed and other factors as gear (s) in the gearbox reach various angles during rotations. As the arm is rotated by the joint, transmission errors of the joint may be greatly affected by the rotations, and thus the real path 160 may show a periodical pattern related to rotations of the joint 114. With the present embodiments, the transmission error of the joint 114 may be effectively determined based on the path deviation and the collected kinematic data. Once the transmission error is determined, it may be used for further correcting a robot path that is to be run by the robot system 100, therefore the tip of the robot system 100 may be controlled with an increased accurate level. Further, no calibrating tools are needed for determining the transmission error, such that time cost for equipping and removing the calibrating tools is eliminated.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that periodic discrepancies which relate to the transmission error would be related to the gear teeth of the transmission.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiguchi with that of Mao to include a method for understanding when error arise from the gearbox or transmission of power in robotic actuators. This would allow the system to preform more accurate operation throughout its operating window. (Mao [0002] reads “With the development of computer and automatic control, robot systems have been widely used to process various types of objects in the manufacturing industry. For example, a tool may be equipped at a tip of the robot system for cutting, grabbing and other operations. Typically, a robot system may have a plurality of mechanical arms, each of which may be rotated by a corresponding joint at an end of the arm. The joint is driven by a gearbox, while rotations of the joint are not always accurate due to gearbox mechanism errors and other errors. Sometimes a transmission error may be caused during a movement of the joint. Usually, the robot system may have multiple arms and transmission errors caused by multiple joints of the multiple arms may be accumulated and thus result in a path deviation at the tip of the robot system.”);
Regarding claim 5 Kamiguchi/Mao teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the joint further comprises a harmonic drive gear, wherein the kinematic error correction is a weighted sum also of circular functions of integer multiples of the rotation angle multiplied by if/ic, wherein if is the number of teeth of a flex-spline of the harmonic drive gear, and ic is the number of teeth of a circular spline thereof. (Mao [0045 – 0046] reads “The transmission error depends on transmission torque, speed and other factors as gear (s) in the gearbox reach various angles during rotations. As the arm is rotated by the joint, transmission errors of the joint may be greatly affected by the rotations, and thus the real path 160 may show a periodical pattern related to rotations of the joint 114. With the present embodiments, the transmission error of the joint 114 may be effectively determined based on the path deviation and the collected kinematic data. Once the transmission error is determined, it may be used for further correcting a robot path that is to be run by the robot system 100, therefore the tip of the robot system 100 may be controlled with an increased accurate level. Further, no calibrating tools are needed for determining the transmission error, such that time cost for equipping and removing the calibrating tools is eliminated.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that periodic discrepancies which relate to the transmission error would be related to the gear teeth of the transmission.);
Claim(s) 6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Kamiguchi (JP 2017209762 A), in further view of Xiaowen (CN 111958600 B).
Regarding claim 6 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 1.
Kamiguchi does not teach wherein in step b) a speed for the trajectory is chosen so that the motor frequency or a harmonic thereof is a resonance frequency of the manipulator.
Xiaowen in analogous art, teaches wherein in step b) a speed for the trajectory is chosen so that the motor frequency or a harmonic thereof is a resonance frequency of the manipulator. (Xiaowen page 4 paragraph 6 reads “step 1, acquiring the main resonant frequency of each joint end by a frequency sweep method or a hammering method, and using the main resonant frequency for designing a target function.” And page 5 paragraph 7 reads “the idea of the invention is to design an industrial robot to stop a process module, which can be used for each joint control of the robot, respectively. For the joint 1, the frequency sweep method is used to obtain the main resonant frequency point of ω 7.5Hz, so that the frequency range to be filtered is selected to be ω17Hz to omega2＝8Hz”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiguchi with that of Xiaowen to include a method that would allow the system to better understand its motion and errors when operating at different frequencies. This would allow the system to better suppress its vibrations which would lead to both more accurate manipulation and improved safety. (Xiaowen page 3 spanning paragraph reads “With the gradual accumulation of automation technology, industrial robots released by various manufacturers are not only rich in variety, but also gradually perfect in performance. In which, no matter in consideration of safety or process requirements, the stopping mechanism of an industrial robot is one of the key indicators for evaluating the performance of the robot. The robot is switched from a high-speed running state to a stopping state quickly, for example, the robot is processed after collision detection or triggered by an emergency stop button, so that large vibration is easy to generate in the running process, and meanwhile, obvious residual vibration is also accompanied, and serious safety threat is caused to personnel and equipment.”);
Regarding claim 8 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 1.
Kamiguchi does not teach of the preceding claims, wherein the judgment of step g. is based on a spectral analysis of the recorded acceleration values.
Xiaowen in analogous art, teaches of the preceding claims, wherein the judgment of step g. is based on a spectral analysis of the recorded acceleration values. (Xiaowen page 6 last paragraph reads “The running time is strictly 256 × τ in the set time, the running distance is strictly 130cts, the speed is monotonically decreased, and the acceleration is smooth and has no sudden change; the acceleration trajectory is subjected to a spectral analysis, as shown in fig. 2, and it can be seen that there is a very good attenuation around the main resonance frequency (7.5Hz) of the joint 1.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiguchi with that of Xiaowen to include a method that would allow the system to better understand its motion and errors when operating at different frequencies. This would allow the system to better suppress its vibrations which would lead to both more accurate manipulation and improved safety. (Xiaowen page 3 spanning paragraph reads “With the gradual accumulation of automation technology, industrial robots released by various manufacturers are not only rich in variety, but also gradually perfect in performance. In which, no matter in consideration of safety or process requirements, the stopping mechanism of an industrial robot is one of the key indicators for evaluating the performance of the robot. The robot is switched from a high-speed running state to a stopping state quickly, for example, the robot is processed after collision detection or triggered by an emergency stop button, so that large vibration is easy to generate in the running process, and meanwhile, obvious residual vibration is also accompanied, and serious safety threat is caused to personnel and equipment.”);
Regarding claim 9 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 1.
Kamiguchi does not teach wherein the judgment of step g. is based on a spectral component of the recorded acceleration values whose frequency is twice the motor frequency.
Xiaowen in analogous art, teaches wherein the judgment of step g. is based on a spectral component of the recorded acceleration values whose frequency is twice the motor frequency. (Xiaowen page 6 last paragraph reads “The running time is strictly 256 × τ in the set time, the running distance is strictly 130cts, the speed is monotonically decreased, and the acceleration is smooth and has no sudden change; the acceleration trajectory is subjected to a spectral analysis, as shown in fig. 2, and it can be seen that there is a very good attenuation around the main resonance frequency (7.5Hz) of the joint 1.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that spectral analysis could be done at any value of motor frequency including twice the motor frequency.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiguchi with that of Xiaowen to include a method that would allow the system to better understand its motion and errors when operating at different frequencies. This would allow the system to better suppress its vibrations which would lead to both more accurate manipulation and improved safety. (Xiaowen page 3 spanning paragraph reads “With the gradual accumulation of automation technology, industrial robots released by various manufacturers are not only rich in variety, but also gradually perfect in performance. In which, no matter in consideration of safety or process requirements, the stopping mechanism of an industrial robot is one of the key indicators for evaluating the performance of the robot. The robot is switched from a high-speed running state to a stopping state quickly, for example, the robot is processed after collision detection or triggered by an emergency stop button, so that large vibration is easy to generate in the running process, and meanwhile, obvious residual vibration is also accompanied, and serious safety threat is caused to personnel and equipment.”);
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Kamiguchi (JP 2017209762 A), in further view of Mizoguchi (US 20210053230 A1).
Regarding claim 7 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 1.
Kamiguchi does not teach wherein the expected acceleration values of step c. and/or the recorded acceleration values of step f. are vector quantities, and the judgment of step g. involves combining all three components of each vector quantity into a single scalar quantity.
Mizoguchi in analogous art, teaches wherein the expected acceleration values of step c. and/or the recorded acceleration values of step f. are vector quantities, and the judgment of step g. involves combining all three components of each vector quantity into a single scalar quantity. (Mizoguchi [0111] reads “For example, the robotic system 100 can sample the contact sensors 226 after or during a specific category of maneuvers, such as for lifts or rotations. Also, for example, the robotic system 100 can sample the contact sensors 226 when a direction and/or a magnitude of an accelerometer output matches or exceeds a predetermined threshold that represents a sudden or fast movement.” It would be appreciated by one with ordinary skill in the art that to find the magnitude of a quantity that is typically measured in vectors that a sum of the squares method would have to be performed.);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiguchi with that of Mizoguchi to include a method that would allow the system to better compare acceleration values across multiple situations. This would allow the system to better manipulate a range of objects while also reducing error. (Mizoguchi [0003] reads “Robots (e.g., machines configured to automatically/autonomously execute physical actions) are now extensively used in many fields. Robots, for example, can be used to execute various tasks (e.g., manipulate or transfer an object) in manufacturing, packaging, transport and/or shipping, etc. In executing the tasks, robots can replicate human actions, thereby replacing or reducing human involvements that are otherwise required to perform dangerous or repetitive tasks. Robots often lack the sophistication necessary to duplicate human sensitivity and/or adaptability required for executing more complex tasks. For example, robots often have difficulty selectively gripping object(s) from a group of objects with immediately neighboring objects, as well as irregular shaped/sized objects, etc. Accordingly, there remains a need for improved robotic systems and techniques for controlling and managing various aspects of the robots.”);
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to Kamiguchi (JP 2017209762 A), in further view of Ames (US 20210053220 A1).
Regarding claim 11 Kamiguchi teaches The method of claim 10.
Kamiguchi does not teach wherein modifying the kinematic error function in step h. comprises a sub-step of estimating a gradient of the deviation in terms of the weighting coefficients of the kinematic error correction and adding the gradient, times a scalar factor, to a vector formed by the weighting coefficients of the kinematic error correction.
Ames in analogous art, teaches wherein modifying the kinematic error function in step h. comprises a sub-step of estimating a gradient of the deviation in terms of the weighting coefficients of the kinematic error correction and adding the gradient, times a scalar factor, to a vector formed by the weighting coefficients of the kinematic error correction. (Ames [0140] reads “The exit condition evaluation at 314 may be a determination that an estimated jerk limited velocity is sufficient relative to a defined criteria, and/or may be the performance of a defined number of iterations of refining the jerk limited velocity estimate, e.g. converging to a suitable jerk limited velocity estimate. For example, to determine whether a jerk limited velocity estimate is sufficient, the processor-based system may determine a difference between a jerk limited velocity or velocity squared estimate for a current iteration and a jerk limited velocity or velocity square estimate for a most recent previous iteration. The processor-based system can then determine whether the difference is within a defined acceptable difference threshold. The difference threshold may be selected to reflect the fact that gradual improvements in the jerk limited velocity estimate will result in the difference becoming smaller with each iteration by the jerk limited optimizer. The specific difference threshold will be application specific, and will depend on balancing a desire for optimized jerk limited velocity of a robot or robotic appendage versus the speed of calculating the optimized jerk limited velocity. The number of iterations can be set to any desired integer value.”);
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kamiguchi with that of Ames to include a method that would allow the system to better understand how quickly it was reducing error in it control program. This would allow the system to better understand the learning that it was preforming while also computing the most optimal path to complete a task. (Ames [0003 - 0004] reads “It is typical for a robot or portion thereof to move along a path or trajectory, from a start pose or configuration to an end pose or configuration with one or more intermediary poses or configurations therebetween. One problem in robotics is maximizing a velocity of the robot or portion thereof along the path, while maintaining limits on acceleration and minimizing any jerking of the robot or portion thereof resulting from the motion. Such can be posed as an optimization problem, that is to optimize velocity along a geometric path without violating any constraints. The constraints in this context include constraints on velocity, acceleration, and jerk (i.e., the derivative of acceleration with respect to time). Optimizing velocity while observing a limit on jerking (i.e., a jerk limit) is typically a computationally difficult problem. Conventional approaches employ non-linear optimization methods. These non-linear optimization methods are typically slow to solve, and are prone to getting stuck in non-optimal local minima, resulting in faulty solutions.”);
Regarding claim 12 Kamiguchi/Ames teaches The method of claim 11, wherein the scalar factor is increased if the change of direction of the gradient between successive iterations is below a given lower threshold and is decreased when the change of direction is above a given upper threshold. (Ames [0140] reads “The exit condition evaluation at 314 may be a determination that an estimated jerk limited velocity is sufficient relative to a defined criteria, and/or may be the performance of a defined number of iterations of refining the jerk limited velocity estimate, e.g. converging to a suitable jerk limited velocity estimate. For example, to determine whether a jerk limited velocity estimate is sufficient, the processor-based system may determine a difference between a jerk limited velocity or velocity squared estimate for a current iteration and a jerk limited velocity or velocity square estimate for a most recent previous iteration. The processor-based system can then determine whether the difference is within a defined acceptable difference threshold. The difference threshold may be selected to reflect the fact that gradual improvements in the jerk limited velocity estimate will result in the difference becoming smaller with each iteration by the jerk limited optimizer. The specific difference threshold will be application specific, and will depend on balancing a desire for optimized jerk limited velocity of a robot or robotic appendage versus the speed of calculating the optimized jerk limited velocity. The number of iterations can be set to any desired integer value.”);
Other references not Cited
Throughout examination other references were found that could read onto the prior art. Though these references were not used in this examination they could be used in future examination and could read on the contents of the current disclosure. These references are, Washizu (US 20180257227 A1); Karlen (US 4973215 A); Inamoto (US 20220035373 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6228. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 am - 5 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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at (571) 270 - 5744. 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.
/JOHN MARTIN O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658