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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 15th, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 includes successive limitations separated by commas in a singular, long paragraph format. The lack of spacing and indentation in this arrangement can be difficult to read and understand. In order to improve readability, examiner suggests each separate limitation to be given a paragraph break and proper indents for more distinct clarification.
For example, claim 12 can be rewritten in a similar format as below:
The robotic system of claim 10, wherein the controller comprises:
Element A;
Element B;
[and so on]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Oestergaard et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0057095 A1), herein “Oestergaard”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Oestergaard discloses a method and robotic system for assessing kinematic error in a joint that rotatably connects a proximal portion and a distal portion of a robot arm, the joint having associated with it a motor mounted in one of the portions and coupled to the other one of the portions for driving rotation of the joint by a transmission gear having a reduction ratio, a sensor for measuring the rotation of the joint (See 0012-0014, “[…] utilizes two position sensors in each robot joint to achieve desired safety functions […] position sensors are used for sensing the angular or linear position on the input or output side of the gear or similar transmission device. If any violations of operational limits or errors in hardware or software is discovered […] robot will be brought to a safe state […] In the robot joint the sensors are placed so that one position sensor sits on the input side of the gear (motor side) and one sits on the output side of the gear (robot arm side) […]”), and a controller adapted to carry out the method comprising:
a) determining a movement of the robot arm in which the joint, while being rotated from a start angle to an end angle, is subject to a constant gravity-induced torque (See 0016-0020, “[…] output side position sensor directly monitors the angle of the robot joint, and detects if it goes outside the limit defined by the safety settings. In the second system, the input side position sensor calculates the corresponding output side position, by taking the number of full revolutions and the gear ratio into account […] speed of the robot joint can be approximated by the difference in position over a time interval (numerical differentiation). In case of high-resolution position sensors and a good time measurement […] expected torque exerted in each robot joint can be calculated (output side). The motor currents are also measured to estimate the motor side torque on the joint (input side). These two systems can be used to verify that the torque is within a given limit.” Examiner notes a constant gravity-induced torque is a necessary factor in kinematic calculations, and all physical components of a robot arm are naturally subject to it, thus the robot joint being able to calculated an “expected torque” necessarily includes the force of gravity, a fundamental law of physics);
b) controlling execution of the movement and controlling the joint to rotate from the start angle to the end angle at a constant speed (See 0030-0036, “[…] position and speed of the robot joints can be used to calculate and limit the momentum of the robot and the payload at any given point in time […] redundant speed measurement is used to check that the robot is actually decelerating, whereby the robot decelerates actively and within the programs trajectory […] speed estimation can also be used to control and ensure a redundant deceleration of the robot […] reducing the torque produced by the joints, based on the speeds of the joints, is used for making sure that the total mechanical work produced by the robot is kept within a certain limit.” Examiner notes the robot controlled for redundant deceleration is the same as controlling executing of a movement at a constant speed);
c) detecting speed fluctuations of the joint while it is being rotated from the start angle to the end angle (See 0004-0005, “[…] detects collision of a robot with its surroundings based on abnormal torque generated at the manipulator part of the robot. If collision is detected by this collision detection function, control is performed to stop the operation of the robot or otherwise lighten the collision force […] precisely estimate the frictional torque of the gears or speed reducers etc. provided at the different parts of a robot. In this regard, the frictional torque fluctuates depending on the outside air temperature and the operating state of the robot […]”); and
(per Claim 1 only) d) estimating the kinematic error based on the speed fluctuations (See 0004-0005 and 0012 as referenced above. Examiner notes violations of operational limits in any of the disclosed domains, including joint position, speed and torque, constitutes a kinematic error and is estimated based on frictional torque fluctuations of the gears or speed reducers).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Oestergaard further discloses the method of claim 1 and robotic system of claim 10, wherein the sensor is an angle sensor associated with an output shaft of the transmission gear (See 0065, “[…] the sensors sense angular or linear position. Preferably the first position sensor senses the position on the input side of the gear, whereas the second position sensor senses the position on the output side of the gear.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Oestergaard further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting a speed fluctuation comprises determining an angle of an output shaft of the motor, calculating therefrom an expected angle of the joint using the reduction ratio of the transmission gear, and determining a difference between the expected angle and an angle measured by said sensor (See 0004-0005 and 0016-0020 as referenced above. See also 0051-0052, “[…] directly monitors the angle of the robot joint, and detects if the angle is beyond a predefined angle range, whereas the first position sensor calculates the corresponding output side position based on the number of full revolutions and gear ratio […] the speed of the robot joint is determined by the difference in position over a time interval […]”).
Regarding Claim 4, Oestergaard further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the reduction ratio of the transmission gear is high enough to require several revolutions of the motor for rotating the joint from the start angle to the end angle (See 0051, “[…] the second position sensor directly monitors the angle of the robot joint, and detects if the angle is beyond a predefined angle range, whereas the first position sensor calculates the corresponding output side position based on the number of full revolutions and gear ratio […]”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oestergaard et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0057095 A1), herein “Oestergaard”, in view of Schleifer et al. (EP Patent Pub. No. 0 522 411 A1), herein “Schleifer”.
Regarding Claim 5, Oestergaard does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the movement is chosen so that at least while rotating from the start angle to the end angle the joint has a vertical axis of rotation.
Schleifer, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches the movement is chosen so that at least while rotating from the start angle to the end angle the joint has a vertical axis of rotation (See 0011, “[…] a first link connected by a rotatable joint to a base, wherein the displacement of the rotatable joint is measured by an encoder […] placing an inclinometer or leveling device on one of the links at a preselected location having a known angle with respect to the link centerline or some other reference position and moving the rotatable joint until the link is level or at a reference angle position […] generate a signal indicating orientation relative to the direction of the gravity vector.” Examiner notes using gravity variations during rotation for calibration necessarily includes motion about an axis oriented relative to gravity).
In view of Schleifer’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the kinematic error assessment and correction method using detected speed fluctuations in the joint of a robotic arm as disclosed by Oestergaard, the rotation of the joint having a vertical axis of rotation, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the robotic system and method already incorporate natural torques, such as gravity, to calibrate encoders by orienting joint axes relative to the source(s) of torque(s), thus making the specific addition of a vertical axis of rotation an obvious design choice since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Oestergaard et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2017/0057095 A1), herein “Oestergaard”, in view of Woodside et al. (“A Kinematic Error Controller for Real-Time Kinematic Error Correction of Industrial Robots”), published in 2020, herein “Woodside”.
Regarding Claim 12, Oestergaard discloses the robotic system of claim 10, wherein the controller is adapted to assess, based on said speed fluctuations, a kinematic error associated with a given angle of the joint, and input to the position controller, as said position command, the desired rotation angle corrected by its associated kinematic error (See 0004-0005, 0012 and 0030-0036 as referenced above).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller comprises a trajectory generator for outputting, based on a predetermined trajectory which maps successive instants in time onto associated desired rotation angles of the joint or its associated motor, at a given instant in time, a position command specifying the desired rotation angle associated with said given instant, and a position controller for adjusting a rotation angle of the joint or the motor to a position command received.
Woodside, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches controller comprises a trajectory generator for outputting, based on a predetermined trajectory which maps successive instants in time onto associated desired rotation angles of the joint or its associated motor, at a given instant in time, a position command specifying the desired rotation angle associated with said given instant, and a position controller for adjusting a rotation angle of the joint or the motor to a position command received (See Pg. 708 Sections 2.3 and 2.4, “The KEO in continuous time […] is implemented in discrete time using a backward Euler integration method, and Δt is the timestamp difference between the current and previous estimate of the kinematic error measurement […] The KEC utilizes the estimated kinematic error […] to compute a path correction which is transmitted to the robot controller, integrated, and then applied directly to the reference trajectory in the robot’s internal control loop; thereby, indirectly changing the robot’s response.” See also Pg. 709-710 Sections 2.5 and 3, “The position and orientation of the reference frame defines the desired (nominal) behavior of the end effector as the robot is commanded through its reference trajectory […] maps the robot’s joint angles to the position and orientation of the robot’s nth axis frame. Substituting the robot’s encoder measurements […] will produce the measured position […] used to program and upload a set of waypoints […] defining the reference trajectory. The robot’s internal control loop commands the robot through the reference trajectory while simultaneously transmitting encoder measurements to the KEO […]”).
In view of Woodside’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the kinematic error assessment and correction method using detected speed fluctuations in the joint of a robotic arm as disclosed by Oestergaard, trajectory generation and position control architectures, with a reasonable expectation of success, since the method and system already discloses robotic controllers capable of actuating components of the robotic arm, and both references address the same technical problem of improving positional accuracy by compensating mechanical transmission and kinematic errors. Furthermore, incorporating the estimated kinematic error as a corrective term for positional command is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would have been obvious to implement within standard servo control frameworks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, along with claims 7-9 by nature of dependency, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The available prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest in combination the kinematic assessment process of a robot joint where multiple joints are actively controlled such that the torque on one joint remains constant through matched speed or opposite directional rotations. Although the prior art does teach multiple joint manipulation for desired movement or trajectories of the robot arm to increase operational safety, it does not mention coordinated motion of multiple joints in the specific manner claimed in claim 6, and further narrowed in claims 7-9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Hosek et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2011/0173496 A1); Giovannitti et al. (“A Virtual Sensor for Backlash in Robotic Manipulators”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bryant Tang whose telephone number is (571)270-0145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 CST.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/BRYANT TANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658