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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 46 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 46, 47, 48 and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonhardt (US 20200317312, hereinafter referred to as Leo) in view of Osaka (US 20100307545).
For claim 33, Leo teaches: A computer-implemented method for performing a sequence of behaviors by a robot ([0021], disclosing a processor performing operations of controlling remote operation vehicle ROV and its arm), the sequence of behaviors including a first behavior and a second behavior ([0014], disclosing tool of ROV can grasp and hold objects, a multitude of different tools that can be used with an ROV, including torque tools, cutters and other tools. A tool interchange 20 mounts at the end of the manipulator arm 16, between the manipulator arm 16 and the tool 18, becoming the interface between the arm 16 and the tool 18. The tool interchange 20 enables the ROV 10 to change out tools), the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system of the robot, first information associated with the first behavior and second information associated with the second behavior ([0024-0030], disclosing identifying position, orientation and distance of tool holder is determined using a camera. Receiving camera image is receiving information and first behavior is to approach tool holder and second behavior is to dock arm of ROV to tool holder. Information for both behaviors is received through image);
determining, by the computing system, based on the first information, the second information, and a model of at least a portion of the robot, a sequence of behaviors that includes the first behavior and the second behavior ([0024-0030], disclosing determining a path for arm of ROV to approach tool holder and dock the arm to tool holder i.e., determining a sequence of behaviors. In calculating the nominal path, the system operates a kinematic model of the manipulator arm and uses this model to calculate the movement of the joints necessary to move the tool into proximity of the opening in the tool holder and to dock with the tool holder), wherein the sequence of behaviors includes motion information for one or more joints and/or links of the robot included in the at least a portion of the robot ([0024], disclosing In calculating the nominal path, the system operates a kinematic model of the manipulator arm and uses this model to calculate the movement of the joints necessary to move the tool into proximity of the opening in the tool holder and to dock with the tool holder);
And controlling, by the computing system, movement of the robot based on the motion information for the one or more joints and/or links of the robot to perform the sequence of behaviors ([0025], disclosing system implements movement of the manipulator arm along the nominal path by signaling the actuators at the joints of the manipulator arm to move according to the determined nominal path).
Leo does not explicitly disclose that ROV is prone to losing balance, hence does not disclose perform the sequence of behaviors while maintaining balance of the robot
Osaka teaches of a robot that maintains its balance ([0137], disclosing center of gravity of the submersible cleaning robot 1 is positioned below the support portions 66, so front-to-rear and left-to-right balance is maintained well. As a result, the submersible cleaning robot 1 maintains a state in which it is suspended in an attitude of an approximately level running state)
Leo and Osaka are analogous as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., submersible robots. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to design and/or control ROV of Leo to perform the sequence of behaviors while maintaining balance of the robot as taught by Osaka to maintain a state in which it is suspended in an attitude of an approximately level running state.
Computing system of claim 46 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 33, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 34, modified Leo teaches: The method of claim 33, wherein receiving first information associated with the first behavior and second information associated with the second behavior comprises receiving the first information and the second information from a perception system of the robot ([0026], disclosing operation 506 can be implemented using images (still or video) from the camera).
Claim 47 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 34, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 35, modified Leo teaches: The method of claim 33, wherein determining a sequence of behaviors comprises blending a connection between the first behavior and the second behavior ([0024], disclosing In calculating the nominal path, the system operates a kinematic model of the manipulator arm and uses this model to calculate the movement of the joints necessary to move the tool into proximity of the opening in the tool holder and to dock with the tool holder. Moving to opening of the tool holder and docking with the tool holder are two behaviors and they are necessarily blended).
Claim 48 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 35, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 36, modified Leo teaches: The method of claim 35, wherein determining a sequence of behaviors further comprises populating a queue of behaviors including the first behavior and the second behavior using a planner ([0024-0030], disclosing determining a path for arm of ROV to approach tool holder and dock the arm to tool holder. As tool holder needs to follow a path to approach prior to docking, a queue is populated).
Claim 49 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 36, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 42, modified Leo teaches: The method of claim 33, wherein the motion information includes position information and/or torque information for each of the one or more joints and/or links of the robot ([0024], disclosing In calculating the nominal path, the system operates a kinematic model of the manipulator arm and uses this model to calculate the movement of the joints necessary to move the tool).
Claims 37 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo in view of Osaka and Graichen (US 20200086486).
For claim 37, modified Leo teaches: The method of claim 35,
Leo does not teach: wherein the computing system includes a model predictive controller configured to output the motion information for the one or more joints and/or links of the robot, and blending a connection between the first behavior and the second behavior comprises configuring a cost structure of the model predictive controller to promote smooth changes in momentum and/or force of the one or more joints and/or links of the robot.
Griachen teaches of model predictive controller to output motion information for the one or more joints and/or links of the robot configuring a cost structure of the model predictive controller to promote smooth changes in momentum and/or force of the one or more joints and/or links of the robot ([0022-0024], disclosing motion planning using model predictive control to allow a smooth and natural motion of a robot or its manipulator. And a cost function that weights a deviation of the manipulator from the target path and a deviation of a current path parameter from a target parameter specified by the target path)
Leo and Graichen are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., robot control. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Leo to wherein the computing system includes a model predictive controller configured to output the motion information for the one or more joints and/or links of the robot, and blending a connection between the first behavior and the second behavior comprises configuring a cost structure of the model predictive controller to promote smooth changes in momentum and/or force ([0029], disclosing force control over path) of the one or more joints and/or links of the robot as taught by Graichen to allow smooth motion of robot.
Claim 50 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 37, hence is similarly rejected.
Claims 38, 39, 41, 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leo in view of Osaka and Thomaz (US 20200070343).
For claim 38, modified Leo teaches: The method of claim 33,
Leo does not teach: wherein the robot is a humanoid robot.
Thomaz teaches wherein the robot is a humanoid robot (abstract, disclosing a robotic apparatus having manipulating components. [0065], disclosing robot is a humanoid robot)
Leo and Thomaz are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., robots with manipulators. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Leo to wherein the robot is a humanoid robot as taught by Thomaz as a design choice to cater to different applications.
Claim 51 recites limitation similar in scope to claim 38, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 39, modified Leo teaches: The method of claim 33, wherein determining a sequence of behaviors comprises: determining a first controlling speed for movement of the arm while arm is guided along the nominal path. As arm is guided along path to dock, it is necessarily guided away after a tool is stowed/acquired. Moving towards docking is first behavior, and docking and moving away from docking is second behavior. Furthermore, as first behavior and second behavior have to be executed in order, their respective speeds have to be concatenated).
Although Leo teaches of first speed and second speed, Leo does not disclose speeds to be part of their respective trajectories.
Thomaz teaches generating trajectory for arm of robot ([0016], disclosing generating manipulating arm i.e., arm of robot)
Thomaz and Leo are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., robot manipulators. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Leo to determining a first trajectory to achieve the first behavior; determining a second trajectory to achieve the second behavior; and concatenating the first trajectory and the second trajectory as taught by Thomaz to accurately plan and execute path of arm.
Claim 52 recites limitations similar in scope to claim 39, hence is similarly rejected.
For claim 43, modified Leo teaches: The method of claim 33, wherein the motion information includes as the manipulator arm along the nominal path by signaling the actuators at the joints of the manipulator arm to move according to the determined nominal path. Actuators are necessarily operated to exert a certain magnitude of force in a specific direction)
Leo does not teach the motion information include the above as a function of time.
Thomaz teaches of motion information as a function of time ([0068-0070], disclosing generating a trajectory. Trajectory is motion information as a function of time. [0008-0010], disclosing a robot with a manipulating arm)
Leo and Thomaz are analogous arts as they are in same field of endeavor i.e., motion planning for robot. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of claimed invention to modify art of Leo to wherein the motion information includes as a function of time, a magnitude, and a direction of a force to apply to each respective joint and/or link as taught by Thomaz improve motion planning and execution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40, 41, 44 and 45 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Herring (US 20140166045) teaches of maintaining balance of a robot. See [0061].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights