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 1-19 are pending.
The prior art submitted on 12/17/24 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 1-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1 and 6, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1. A method for use with a robot, the robot comprising at least one arm, the method comprising:
receiving a force applied onto a force sensor attached at an end of the arm;
determining a first vector from the force sensor;
determining a second vector based on a torque of a joint of the robot, the joint being coupled to the arm; and
determining a transformation relation between the first vector and the second vector.
Claim 6. A device for use with a robot, the robot comprising at least one arm, the device comprising:
a force receiving module configured to receive a force applied onto a force sensor attached at an end of the arm;
a first vector determining module configured to determine a first vector from the force sensor;
a second vector determining module configured to determine a second vector based on a torque of a joint of the robot, the joint being coupled to the arm; and
a relation determining module configured to determine a transformation relation between the first vector and the second vector.
Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method, and a device 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 "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 receiving a force applied….at an end of the arm”, “determining a first vector”; “determining a second vector based on a torque of a joint of the robot, the joint being coupled to the arm”; and determining a transformation relation between the first vector and the second vector”. 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 force sensor". That is, other
than reciting "a force sensor" nothing in the claim precludes the steps from
practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "a force sensor" language, the claim encompasses a user apply a force at a force sensor at an end of the robot arm, made an evaluation of the amount and direction of force, and amount of force applied to a robot joint, and judgment a relationship of the two force. The mere nominal recitation of a force sensor does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Additionally, the determining a transformation steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a process that is practically performed in the human mind. For example, these limitations cover a user
making an observation two force applied to the end of the robot and a joint of the robot, and evaluation, or judgment on a particular set up condition a
control program which are recorded in a memory a relationship of the two applied force.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
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 force sensor", “a force receiving module”, “a first vector determining module”, “a second vector determining module”, and “a relation determining module” that
performs the claimed steps. These module as described in specification are computer processor. The receiving, determining by a computer processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receiving and determining 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 (the module).
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.
4. Regarding dependent claims 2-5, and 7-19, 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 2-5, and 7-19 add additional steps to the device which only determining the second vector and transformation
which are an abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-5, and 7-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1 and 6.
Therefore, claims 1-19 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As for claim 11, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, "A computer-readable media” is directed to a non-statutory matter. It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible medium and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable recording medium, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir.2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both
transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the
claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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 force receiving module”, “a first vector determining module”, “a second vector determining module”, and “a relation determining module” (claim 6). These limitations use the generic placeholder "module" 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 [0040] describe the module.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 3-6, 8-11, and 14-19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2021/0197371 A1).
As per claim 1, Huang et al. disclose a method for use with a robot, the robot comprising at least one arm, the method comprising: receiving a force applied onto a force sensor attached at an end of the arm (see at least [0020] disclose at the end of the robotic arm, a first sensor can be disposed to collect an external force acting on the end); determining a first vector from the force sensor (see at least [0020] disclose when the dimension (i.e., motion dimension) of the end of the robotic arm is 6, the first sensor may be a 6-dimensional force sensor; and para. [0021] disclose the value collected by the first sensor is represented by Fext, where Fext is a Mx1 matrix; and para. [0044-0046] disclose matrix components of the force); determining a second vector based on a torque of a joint of the robot, the joint being coupled to the arm (see at least [0020-0021] disclose a second sensor can be disposed on each joint that is generated by an external force acting on a link of the robotic arm connecting the joint. The torque collected by the second sensor is Text, where Text is an Nx1 matrix; and para. [0062-0066] disclose the matrix components of the torque applied to the joints); and determining a transformation relation between the first vector and the second vector (see at least [0035-0046] disclose steps of calculating the first joint speed of each joint based on the degree of influence of the joint on the end in each motion dimension and the external force acting on the end; and para. [0051-0065] disclose the transpose of a matrix composed of the external force acting on the end and the degree of influence of the joint on the end in each motion dimension).
As per claim 3, Huang et al. disclose determining the second vector comprises: determining the second vector further based on a relative offset of coordinates between the end of the arm and the force sensor (see at least [0035-0046] disclose steps of calculating the first joint speed of each joint based on the degree of influence of the joint on the end in each motion dimension and the external force acting on the end; and para. [0051-0065] disclose the transpose of a matrix composed of the external force acting on the end and the degree of influence of the joint on the end in each motion dimension).
As per claim 4, Huang et al. disclose the first and second vectors each has three components; and wherein determining the transformation relation comprises determining a matrix having four components, wherein the first component is calculated based on a dot product and lengths of the first and second vectors; and wherein second, third and fourth components are calculated based on a cross product of the first and second vectors (see at least [0035-0047]).
As per claim 5, Huang et al. disclose the first vector and the second vector are unit vectors (see at least [0065-0072]).
Claims 6, and 8-10, are a device claims corresponding to method claims 1, and 3-5 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationales set forth as above.
As per claim 11, Huang et al. disclose a computer-readable media having a computer program stored thereon, the computer program comprising code adapted to perform the method of claim 1 (see at least [0084]).
As per claim 14, Huang et al. disclose wherein the first and second vectors each has three components; and wherein determining the transformation relation comprises determining a matrix having four components, wherein the first component is calculated based on a dot product and lengths of the first and second vectors; and wherein second, third, and fourth components are calculated based on a cross product of the first and second vectors (see at least [0044-0050], and [0062-0066]).
As per claim 15, Huang et al. disclose the first vector and the second vector are unit vectors (see at least 0065-0072]).
As per claim 16, Huang et al. disclose the second vector determining module is further configured to determine the second vector further based on a relative offset of coordinates between the end of the arm and the force sensor (see at least [0035-0046] disclose steps of calculating the first joint speed of each joint based on the degree of influence of the joint on the end in each motion dimension and the external force acting on the end; and para. [0051-0065] disclose the transpose of a matrix composed of the external force acting on the end and the degree of influence of the joint on the end in each motion dimension).
As per claims 17-18, Huang et al. disclose the first and second vectors each has three components; and wherein determining the transformation relation comprises determining a matrix having four components, wherein the first component is calculated based on a dot product and lengths of the first and second vectors; and wherein second, third, and fourth components are calculated based on a cross product of the first and second vectors(see at least [0044-0050], and [0062-0066]).
As per claim 19, Huang et al. disclose the first vector and the second vector are unit vectors (see at least 0065-0072]).
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.
Claims 2, 7, and 12-13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2021/0197371 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2019/0248006 A1).
As per claims 2, and 7, Huang et al. do not explicitly disclose issuing a first message to ask a user to apply a force onto the force sensor. However, Takahashi discloses a teaching operation of a robot arm, and user apply a force onto a force sensor (see at least [0006], and [0047-0053]). It 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 to modify the teach of Huang et al. by combining issuing a first message to ask a user to apply a force onto the force sensor for controlling the robot arm.
As per claim 12, Huang et al. disclose determining the second vector comprises: determining the second vector further based on a relative offset of coordinates between the end of the arm and the force sensor (see at least [0035-0046] disclose steps of calculating the first joint speed of each joint based on the degree of influence of the joint on the end in each motion dimension and the external force acting on the end; and para. [0051-0065] disclose the transpose of a matrix composed of the external force acting on the end and the degree of influence of the joint on the end in each motion dimension).
As per claim 13, Huang et al. disclose the first and second vectors each has three components; and wherein determining the transformation relation comprises determining a matrix having four components, wherein the first component is calculated based on a dot product and lengths of the first and second vectors; and wherein second, third and fourth components are calculated based on a cross product of the first and second vectors (see at least [0035-0047]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
. Kumihiro (10406644)
. Tsusaka et al. (9114530)
. Aiso et al. (US 2015/0105907 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