DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action on the Merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.74 because: different parts in the figures lack reference letters or numerals; and the Specification does not mention or clearly describe Figures 12A-G.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(q) because they do not include lead lines as follows: in Fig. 3, there are no lead lines connecting, for example, the “Speed” label with a portion of the figure; in Fig. 4, there are no lead lines connecting, for example, the “Camera-A” label with a portion of the figure.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
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;
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
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims, as drafted, include embodiments directed to an abstract idea.
As per Claim 1, the claim is directed to a “method for determining … parameters” as per line 1-2 involving steps of “selecting” as per line 3-4, “experiencing” as per line 5-6, “evaluating” as per line 7-8, and “updating” as per line 9-10. The claim does not expressly recite a “robot”, define “robotic touch parameter” to include a robot that operates according to the parameters, or recite a controller that governs operations of a robot in accordance with the parameters. Accordingly, the actions as per lines 3-9 are not clearly connected to operation of any robot. As such, the actions as per line 3-9 include embodiments directed to mental processes performed entirely within the participant’s mind. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application in that none of the recited acts are performed in connection with hardware. As examples: “selecting” the parameters in line 3-4 is not linked to a controller or memory for operation of a controller; “experiencing” each task in line 5-6 is not linked to any specified device; “evaluating” each task in line 7-8 is not linked to receiving information from the participant; and “updating” the parameters in line 9-10 is not linked to a controller or memory for operation of a controller. Accordingly, the claim language does not identify a practical application that would remove the claimed actions from the domain of the human mind.
In addition, the claim as drafted does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is silent as to hardware that is linked to the participant’s mental activity. Therefore, Claim 1 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claims 2-4, the claims further describe the participant’s perception without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 2-4 are not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 5, the claim further recites “allowing the participant to perform a human touch action on a mannequin”. This action does not clearly inform any of the actions in lines 3-10 of Claim 1. As such, this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 5 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 6, the claim further describes the human touch action on the mannequin. This action does not clearly inform any of the actions in lines 3-10 of Claim 1. As such, this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 6 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 7, the claim further recites “performing a robotic force demonstration” involving “showing … applied force levels to an object”. These actions do not clearly inform any of the actions in lines 3-10 of Claim 1. As such, this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 7 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 8, the claim further describes the participant’s perception without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 8 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claims 9 and 10, the claims further recite “collecting a report from the participant”. The “report” is not connected to operation of hardware like memory connected to a robot or a controller that governs operation of a robot. Accordingly, the claim as drafted includes embodiments directed abstract ideas involving the mental processes of Claim 1 and managing relationships or interactions between people. Therefore, Claims 9-10 are not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 11, the claim further recites wherein “evaluating” involves “collecting and analyzing audio and video records of the participant during the performance of the method”. The action of “analyzing” is not necessarily performed via data processing within a processor that governs operation of a robot. As drafted, the “analyzing” encompasses purely mental activity of a person mentally processing the collected recordings. Further, the “collecting” is otherwise conventional activity in which hardware is used as a tool to facilitate the other recited mental activity. As such, this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 11 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 12, the claim further recites “collecting a report” as per line 3-4, and “collecting analyzing audio and video recordings” as per line 5-6. The “report” is not connected to operation of hardware like memory connected to a robot or a controller that governs operation of a robot. Accordingly, the claim as drafted includes embodiments directed abstract ideas involving the mental processes of Claim 1 and managing relationships or interactions between people. The action of “analyzing” is not necessarily performed via data processing within a processor that governs operation of a robot. As drafted, the “analyzing” encompasses purely mental activity of a person mentally processing the collected recordings. Further, the “collecting” is otherwise conventional activity in which hardware is used as a tool to facilitate the other recited mental activity. As such, this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 12 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 13, the claim further recites different robotic parameters. However, these parameters are not clearly connected to hardware that informs operation of any robot. As such, these limitations include embodiments directed to purely mental activity. Therefore, Claim 13 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 14, the claim further recites different touch tasks. However, these tasks are not clearly connected to hardware that informs operation of any robot. As such, these limitations include embodiments directed to purely mental activity. Therefore, Claim 14 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 15, the claim is directed to a “method for determining … parameters” as per line 1-2 involving steps of “determining” in line 5-6, “experiencing” in line 7-8, “evaluating” in line 9-10, “updating” as per line 11-12, “experiencing” as per line 13-14, and “evaluating” as per line 15-16. The claim does not expressly recite a “robot”, define “robotic touch parameter” to include a robot that operates according to the parameters, or recite a controller that governs operations of a robot in accordance with the parameters. Accordingly, the actions as per lines 5-16 are not clearly connected to operation of any robot. The step of “performing” in line 3-4 involves “allowing the participant to perform a human touch action on a mannequin”, but this action is not clearly connected to any of the actions in lines 5-12 and therefore this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As such, the actions as per line 3-16 include embodiments directed to mental processes performed entirely within the participant’s mind. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application in that none of the recited acts are performed in connection with hardware. As examples: “determining” in line 5-6 is not linked to a controller or memory for operation of a controller; “experiencing” each task in line 7-8 is not linked to any specified device; “evaluating” each task in line 9-10 is not linked to receiving information from the participant; “updating” the parameters in line 11-12 is not linked to a controller or memory for operation of a controller; “experiencing” each task in line 13-14 is not linked to any specified device; and “evaluating” in line 15-16 each task in line 9-10 is not linked to receiving information from the participant. Accordingly, the claim language does not identify a practical application that would remove the claimed actions from the domain of the human mind.
In addition, the claim as drafted does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is silent as to hardware that is linked to the participant’s mental activity. Therefore, Claim 15 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 16, claim further describe the participant’s perception without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 16 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 17, the claim further recites “performing a robotic force demonstration” involving “showing … applied force levels to an object”. These actions do not clearly inform any of the actions in lines 3-16 of Claim 15. As such, this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 17 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 18, the claim further recites “collecting reports” in line 5-6; and “collecting and analyzing” in line 7-8. The “reports” are not connected to operation of hardware like memory connected to a robot or a controller that governs operation of a robot. Accordingly, the claim as drafted includes embodiments directed abstract ideas involving the mental processes of Claim 15 and managing relationships or interactions between people. The action of “analyzing” is not necessarily performed via data processing within a processor that governs operation of a robot. As drafted, the “analyzing” encompasses purely mental activity of a person mentally processing the collected recordings. Further, the “collecting” is otherwise conventional activity in which hardware is used as a tool to facilitate the other recited mental activity. As such, this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 18 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 19, the claim is directed to a “method for determining … parameters” as per line 1-2 involving steps of “performing” in line 3-4, “performing” in line 5-6, “performing” in ling 7-8, “allowing” in line 9-10, “allowing” in line 11-12, “evaluating” in line 13-14, “adjusting” in line 15-16, “allowing” in line 17-18, and “evaluating” in line 19-20. The claim does not expressly recite a “robot”, define “robotic touch parameter” to include a robot that operates according to the parameters, or recite a controller that governs operations of a robot in accordance with the parameters. Accordingly, the actions as per lines 5-16 are not clearly connected to operation of any robot. The steps of “allowing” in line 9-10 and “allowing” in line 11-12, as drafted, include embodiments involving permitting a participant to have specified mental processes and the steps in line 13-20 include embodiments directed to mental processes performed entirely within the participant’s mind. Accordingly, the actions as per lines 9-20 are not clearly connected to operation of any robot. The steps of “performing” in line 3-4, “performing” in line 5-6 and line 7-8 are not clearly linked to further steps or each other in that subsequent steps do not refer back to any of the information obtained by the performing and therefore these actions amount to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the mental processes themselves. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Further, the mental processes are not integrated into a practical application in that none of the recited acts are performed in connection with hardware. As examples: “performing” in line 3-8 is not linked to a controller or memory for operation of a controller; “allowing” in line 9-12 is not linked to a controller or memory for operation of a controller; “evaluating” each task in line 13-14 is not linked to receiving information from the participant; “adjusting” parameters in line 15-16 is not linked to a controller or memory for operation of a controller; “allowing” in line 17-18 involves permitting each participant to have specified mental processes; and “evaluating” each task in line 19-20 is not linked to receiving information from the participant. Accordingly, the claim language does not identify a practical application that would remove the claimed actions from the domain of the human mind.
In addition, the claim as drafted does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is silent as to hardware informed by participant’s mental activity. Therefore, Claim 19 is not eligible for patent protection.
As per Claim 20, the claim further recites “collecting reports” in line 5-6; and “collecting and analyzing” in line 7-8. The “reports” are not connected to operation of hardware like memory connected to a robot or a controller that governs operation of a robot. Accordingly, the claim as drafted includes embodiments directed abstract ideas involving the mental processes of Claim 19 and managing relationships or interactions between people. The action of “analyzing” is not necessarily performed via data processing within a processor that governs operation of a robot. As drafted, the “analyzing” encompasses purely mental activity of a person mentally processing the collected recordings. Further, the “collecting” is otherwise conventional activity in which hardware is used as a tool to facilitate the other recited mental activity. As such, this action amounts to extra-solution activity rather than a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claim 20 is not eligible for patent protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 1, “by a participant” in line 4 does not clearly modify “selecting” in line 3 or “performing” in line 3. The claim language is ambiguous as to whether the selecting or the performing is done by the participant. Amendment to clarify who or what does the selecting and who or what does the performing is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 2-14 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 1, “by the participant” in line 6 does not clearly modify “experiencing” in line 5 or “parameters selected” in line 5. The claim language is ambiguous as to whether the experiencing is done by the participant or whether the parameters were selected by the participant. Amendment to clarify who or what does the experiencing and who or what selects the parameters is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 2-14 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 1, “by the participant” in line 8 does not clearly modify “evaluating” in line 7 or “parameters selected” in line 7. The claim language is ambiguous as to whether the evaluating in line 7 is done by the participant or whether parameters were selected by the participant. Amendment to clarify who or what does the evaluating and who or what selects the parameters is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 2-14 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 1, “by the participant” in line 10 does not clearly modify “updating” in line 9 or “performing” in line 9. The claim language is ambiguous as to whether the updating is done by the participant or whether performing the touch task is done by the participant. Amendment to clarify who or what does the updating and who or what does the performing is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 2-14 depending from Claim 1 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 2, “each robotic touch” in line 1 lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “each robotic touch” is intended to relate back to “robotic touch tasks” in line 3 of Claim 1 or introduce a new concept. Clarification is required. Claim 3 depending from Claim 2 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 2, “by the participant” in line 1-2 does not clearly modify “experiencing” in line 1 or “robotic touch” in line 1. The claim language is ambiguous as to whether the experiencing is done by the participant or whether performing the robotic touch is done by the participant. Amendment to clarify who or what does the experiencing and who or what does the robotic touch is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claim 3 depending from Claim 2 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 3, “by the participant” in line 2 does not clearly modify “evaluating” in line 1 or “robotic touch task” in line 1-2. The claim language is ambiguous as to whether the evaluating is done by the participant or whether performing the robotic touch task is done by the participant. Amendment to clarify who or what does the evaluating and who or what does not robotic touch task is respectfully suggested.
As per Claim 4, “allowing” in line 2 does not have a clear meaning in that: it is unclear who or what does the allowing; and it is unclear whether the participant is required to actually experience a parameter to complete the method step. Amendment to clarify who or what does the allowing and to clarify when the step is completed is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 5, “allowing” in line 5 does not have a clear meaning in that: it is unclear who or what does the allowing; and it is unclear whether the participant is required to actually perform a human touch action to complete the method step. Amendment to clarify who or what does the allowing and to clarify when the step is completed is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 15, “allowing” in line 3 does not have a clear meaning in that: it is unclear who or what does the allowing; and it is unclear whether the participant is required to actually perform a human touch action to complete the method step. Amendment to clarify who or what does the allowing and to clarify when the step is completed is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 16-18 depending from Claim 15 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 15, “by each participant” in line 6 does not clearly modify “determining” in line 5 or “performing” in line 5. The claim language is ambiguous as to whether the determining is done by the participant or performing is done by the participant. Amendment to clarify who or what does the determining and who or what does the performing is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claims 16-18 depending from Claim 15 are therefore rejected.
As per Claim 16, “allowing” in line 2 does not have a clear meaning in that: it is unclear who or what does the allowing; and it is unclear whether the participant is required to actually experience the parameters to complete the method step. Amendment to clarify who or what does the allowing and to clarify when the step is completed is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required.
As per Claim 19, “allowing” in line 7 does not have a clear meaning in that: it is unclear who or what does the allowing; and it is unclear whether each participant is required to actually perform a human touch action to complete the method step. Amendment to clarify who or what does the allowing and to clarify when the step is completed is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claim 20 depending from Claim 19 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 19, “allowing” in line 9 does not have a clear meaning in that: it is unclear who or what does the allowing; and it is unclear whether each participant is required to actually select to complete the method step. Amendment to clarify who or what does the allowing and to clarify when the step is completed is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claim 20 depending from Claim 19 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 19, “allowing” in line 11 does not have a clear meaning in that: it is unclear who or what does the allowing; and it is unclear whether each participant is required to actually experience the robotic touch task to complete the method step. Amendment to clarify who or what does the allowing and to clarify when the step is completed is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claim 20 depending from Claim 19 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 19, “allowing” in line 17 does not have a clear meaning in that: it is unclear who or what does the allowing; and it is unclear whether each participant is required to actually experience the robotic touch task to complete the method step. Amendment to clarify who or what does the allowing and to clarify when the step is completed is respectfully suggested. Clarification is required. Claim 20 depending from Claim 19 is therefore rejected.
As per Claim 20, “each participant report” in line 5 lacks proper antecedent basis. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mackin (US Pub. No. 2017/0266077).
As per Claim 1, Mackin discloses a method (as per Fig. 17) for determining robotic touch parameters (as per 405, 401, 402, 404 in Fig. 15) through participatory experiments of physical human-robot interactions (as per “the end effector is controlled to apply the force normal to the general body shape” in ¶62) (Figs. 1, 8, 11, 12a-b, 13-17; ¶45, 53, 56-70) comprising:
selecting (as per 523) different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) for performing different robotic touch tasks (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) by a participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
experiencing (as per 529) each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) selected (as per 523) by the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) selected (as per 523) by the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70); and
updating (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) for performing the different robotic touch tasks (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) by the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70).
As per Claim 2, Mackin further discloses experiencing (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) each robotic touch (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) by the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) with the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) updated (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70).
As per Claim 3, Mackin further discloses evaluating (as per “as desired” in “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) by the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) with the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) updated (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70).
As per Claim 4, Mackin further discloses performing a practice task (as per program executed in 529 before any user modifications) with the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) allowing the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) to experience at least one of the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70).
As per Claim 7, Mackin further discloses performing a robotic force demonstration (as per “Programming can be accomplished by ‘teaching the robot programmed by a combination of manually pushing the end effector 58 along a path and storing the path and parameters into time steps” and “The programmed route can consist of … force” in ¶69) showing a plurality of different applied robot force levels (as per “The programmed route can consist of … force” and “… parameters into time steps” in ¶69) to an object (as per “One method that can be used for ‘teaching’ is for a technician or other person to manually push the robot arms and end effectors over the top of a user and the robot will record the path and moves that are taught to the robot” in ¶69).
As per Claim 9, Mackin further discloses wherein evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience (as per 529) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) comprises collecting a report (as per “integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user in addition to touch commands from the user interface 46” in ¶48; as per “If the user says ‘harder’ … or the user says ‘softer’ …” in ¶63) from the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) on perceived comfort level (as per “to increase or decrease force/pressure” in ¶63) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56).
As per Claim 13, Mackin further discloses with the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) comprises: number of waypoints (as per calibration points 225/226 in Fig. 18), speeds as per (as per “the initial path, including force and speed” in ¶70) at each waypoint (as per calibration points 225/226 in Fig. 18), force applied (as per “The programmed routine can consist of … force” in ¶69), material choice (as per “Other materials” in ¶84) for a robotic hand (58), and specified hand pose (as per “the robot end effector axis is oriented in alignment with the same normal force direction” in ¶61).
As per Claim 14, Mackin further discloses wherein the different robotic touch tasks (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) are at least two different robotic touch tasks (as per operations of end effector 58 at each anatomical point 201-215), wherein each of the at least two different robotic touch tasks (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) touch different body parts (as per 201-215).
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.
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.
Claims 5-6, 11-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin (US Pub. No. 2017/0266077) in view of Einav (US Pub. No. 2007/0282228).
As per Claim 5, Mackin discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Mackin does not expressly disclose performing a bodystorming activity allowing the participant to perform a human touch action on a mannequin.
Einav discloses a device (100) in which a robot arm (102) having a tip (108) performs various operations relative to a patient (Fig. 1; ¶354-357, 362-364, 370-386). In one embodiment, a dummy body is used to show the patient the effect of the motion of the arm (102) on the patient (¶486). In one embodiment, a dummy hand is placed in the device (100) and used for calibration (¶597). Like Mackin, Einav is concerned with robot human interaction systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Einav, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating calibration. Applying the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin would result in a system that provides “performing a bodystorming activity allowing the participant to perform a human touch action on a mannequin” in that the dummy as per Einav would be implemented within the system of Mackin to determine the calibrated path (216) from an initial path (215).
As per Claim 6, the combination of Mackin and Einav teaches or suggests all limitations of Claim 5. Mackin does not expressly disclose wherein the human touch action is one of the physical human-robot interactions.
See rejection of Claim 5 for discussion of teachings of Einav.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Einav, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating calibration. Applying the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin would result in a system that provides “wherein the human touch action is one of the physical human-robot interactions” in that operation of the system of Mackin would be informed by the calibrated path (216) as determined using the dummy as per Einav.
As per Claim 11, Mackin discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Mackin further discloses wherein evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) comprises collecting and analyzing audio recordings (as per “controller 26 with integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user” in ¶48, as per “the user can issue voice commands while the robot is executing the massage route to nudge and adjust the path” in ¶59) of the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) during the performance (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) of the method (as per Fig. 17) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶48, 56-59, 67-70).
Mackin does not expressly disclose discloses wherein evaluating the experience of each robotic touch task comprises collecting and analyzing video recordings of the participant during the performance of the method.
Einav discloses a device (100) in which a robot arm (102) having a tip (108) performs various operations relative to a patient (Fig. 1; ¶354-357, 362-364, 370-386). In one embodiment, a camera (214) is provided adjacent device (100) to allow a therapist to detect problems and/or give advice to the patient (Fig. 2; ¶446, 454). In this way, the system facilitates feedback to the patient in the form of a marked up video image (¶475-476). Like Mackin, Einav is concerned with robot human interaction systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Einav, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating feedback. Applying the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin would result in a system that provides “wherein evaluating the experience of each robotic touch task comprises collecting and analyzing video recordings of the participant during the performance of the method” in that operation of the system of Mackin would be adapted to facilitate feedback as per Einav.
As per Claim 12, Mackin discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Mackin further discloses wherein evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience (as per 529) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) comprises:
collecting a report (as per “integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user in addition to touch commands from the user interface 46” in ¶48; as per “If the user says ‘harder’ … or the user says ‘softer’ …” in ¶63) from the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) on perceived comfort level (as per “to increase or decrease force/pressure” in ¶63) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56); and
collecting and analyzing audio recordings (as per “controller 26 with integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user” in ¶48, as per “the user can issue voice commands while the robot is executing the massage route to nudge and adjust the path” in ¶59) of the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) during the performance (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) of the method (as per Fig. 17) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶48, 56-59, 67-70).
Mackin does not expressly disclose collecting and analyzing video recordings of the participant during the performance of the method.
Einav discloses a device (100) in which a robot arm (102) having a tip (108) performs various operations relative to a patient (Fig. 1; ¶354-357, 362-364, 370-386). In one embodiment, a camera (214) is provided adjacent device (100) to allow a therapist to detect problems and/or give advice to the patient (Fig. 2; ¶446, 454). In this way, the system facilitates feedback to the patient in the form of a marked up video image (¶475-476). Like Mackin, Einav is concerned with robot human interaction systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Einav, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating feedback. Applying the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin would result in a system that provides “wherein evaluating the experience of each robotic touch task comprises collecting and analyzing video recordings of the participant during the performance of the method” in that operation of the system of Mackin would be adapted to facilitate feedback as per Einav.
As per Claim 15, Mackin discloses a method (as per Fig. 17) for determining robotic touch parameters (as per 405, 401, 402, 404 in Fig. 15) through participatory experiments of physical human-robot interactions (as per “the end effector is controlled to apply the force normal to the general body shape” in ¶62) (Figs. 1, 8, 11, 12a-b, 13-17; ¶45, 53, 56-70) comprising:
determining individually different (as per User A, User B in ¶57) robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) for performing different robotic touch tasks (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) by each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
experiencing (as per 529) by each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) by each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) the experience of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
updating (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) by each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) for performing the different robotic touch tasks (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
experiencing (as per “during execution” in ¶70) by each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the updated (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70); and
evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) by each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) the experience (as per “during execution” in ¶70) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the updated (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70).
Mackin does not expressly disclose performing a bodystorming activity allowing each participant of a plurality of participants to perform a human touch action on a mannequin.
Einav discloses a device (100) in which a robot arm (102) having a tip (108) performs various operations relative to a patient (Fig. 1; ¶354-357, 362-364, 370-386). In one embodiment, a dummy body is used to show the patient the effect of the motion of the arm (102) on the patient (¶486). In one embodiment, a dummy hand is placed in the device (100) and used for calibration (¶597). Like Mackin, Einav is concerned with robot human interaction systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Einav, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating calibration. Applying the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin would result in a system that provides “performing a bodystorming activity allowing each participant of a plurality of participants to perform a human touch action on a mannequin” in that the dummy as per Einav would be implemented within the system of Mackin to determine the calibrated path (216) from an initial path (215) for the different users (as User A, User B).
As per Claim 16, Mackin further discloses performing a practice task (as per program executed in 529 before any user modifications) with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) allowing each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) to experience at least one of the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70).
As per Claim 17, Mackin further discloses performing a robotic force demonstration (as per “Programming can be accomplished by ‘teaching the robot programmed by a combination of manually pushing the end effector 58 along a path and storing the path and parameters into time steps” and “The programmed route can consist of … force” in ¶69) showing a plurality of different applied robot force levels (as per “The programmed route can consist of … force” and “… parameters into time steps” in ¶69) to an object (as per “One method that can be used for ‘teaching’ is for a technician or other person to manually push the robot arms and end effectors over the top of a user and the robot will record the path and moves that are taught to the robot” in ¶69).
As per Claim 18, Mackin further discloses wherein evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) by the selecting participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) the experience (as per “during execution” in ¶70) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) selected by the selecting participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) and evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience (as per “during execution” in ¶70) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the updated (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) by the selecting participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) comprises:
collecting reports (as per “integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user in addition to touch commands from the user interface 46” in ¶48; as per “If the user says ‘harder’ … or the user says ‘softer’ …” in ¶63) from each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) on perceived comfort level (as per “to increase or decrease force/pressure” in ¶63) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56); and
collecting and analyzing audio recordings (as per “controller 26 with integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user” in ¶48, as per “the user can issue voice commands while the robot is executing the massage route to nudge and adjust the path” in ¶59) of each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) during the performance (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) of the method (as per Fig. 17) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶48, 56-59, 67-70).
Mackin does not expressly disclose collecting and analyzing video recordings of each participant during the performance of the method.
Einav discloses a device (100) in which a robot arm (102) having a tip (108) performs various operations relative to a patient (Fig. 1; ¶354-357, 362-364, 370-386). In one embodiment, a camera (214) is provided adjacent device (100) to allow a therapist to detect problems and/or give advice to the patient (Fig. 2; ¶446, 454). In this way, the system facilitates feedback to the patient in the form of a marked up video image (¶475-476). Like Mackin, Einav is concerned with robot human interaction systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Einav, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating feedback. Applying the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin would result in a system that provides “collecting and analyzing video recordings of each participant during the performance of the method” in that operation of the system of Mackin would be adapted to facilitate feedback as per Einav.
As per Claim 19, Mackin discloses a method (as per Fig. 17) for determining robotic touch parameters (as per 405, 401, 402, 404 in Fig. 15) through participatory experiments of physical human-robot interactions (as per “the end effector is controlled to apply the force normal to the general body shape” in ¶62) (Figs. 1, 8, 11, 12a-b, 13-17; ¶45, 53, 56-70) comprising:
performing a robotic force demonstration (as per “Programming can be accomplished by ‘teaching the robot programmed by a combination of manually pushing the end effector 58 along a path and storing the path and parameters into time steps” and “The programmed route can consist of … force” in ¶69) showing a plurality of different applied robot force levels (as per “The programmed route can consist of … force” and “… parameters into time steps” in ¶69) to an object (as per “One method that can be used for ‘teaching’ is for a technician or other person to manually push the robot arms and end effectors over the top of a user and the robot will record the path and moves that are taught to the robot” in ¶69);
performing a practice task (as per program executed in 529 before any user modifications) with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) allowing each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15)to experience at least one of the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
allowing each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) to individually select (as per User A, User B in ¶57) different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) for performing different robotic touch tasks (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
allowing each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) to experience (as per 529) each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the selected different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the selected different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
adjusting (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) the different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) for performing the different robotic touch tasks (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) by each of the participants (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70);
allowing each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) to experience (as per “during execution” in ¶70) each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the adjusted (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70); and
evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience (as per “during execution” in ¶70) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the adjusted (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶56-58, 67-70).
Mackin does not expressly disclose performing a bodystorming activity allowing each participant to perform a human touch action on a mannequin.
Einav discloses a device (100) in which a robot arm (102) having a tip (108) performs various operations relative to a patient (Fig. 1; ¶354-357, 362-364, 370-386). In one embodiment, a dummy body is used to show the patient the effect of the motion of the arm (102) on the patient (¶486). In one embodiment, a dummy hand is placed in the device (100) and used for calibration (¶597). Like Mackin, Einav is concerned with robot human interaction systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Einav, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating calibration. Applying the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin would result in a system that provides “performing a bodystorming activity allowing each participant to perform a human touch action on a mannequin” in that the dummy as per Einav would be implemented within the system of Mackin to determine the calibrated path (216) from an initial path (215) for the different users (as User A, User B).
As per Claim 20, Mackin further discloses wherein evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience (as per “during execution” in ¶70) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the selected different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) and evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience (as per “during execution” in ¶70) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) with the adjusted (as per “Any modifications are stored so that the modified program can be stored 534 for repeat utilization and sharing” in ¶70) different robotic parameters (as per “the routine can consist of machine path 215, speed, … force” in ¶69) corresponding with each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) comprises:
collecting each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) report (as per “integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user in addition to touch commands from the user interface 46” in ¶48; as per “If the user says ‘harder’ … or the user says ‘softer’ …” in ¶63) on perceived comfort level (as per “to increase or decrease force/pressure” in ¶63) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56); and
collecting and analyzing audio recordings (as per “controller 26 with integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user” in ¶48, as per “the user can issue voice commands while the robot is executing the massage route to nudge and adjust the path” in ¶59) of each participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) during the performance (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) of the method (as per Fig. 17) (Figs. 11, 12a-b, 15-17; ¶48, 56-59, 67-70).
Mackin does not expressly disclose collecting and analyzing video recordings of each participant during the performance of the method.
Einav discloses a device (100) in which a robot arm (102) having a tip (108) performs various operations relative to a patient (Fig. 1; ¶354-357, 362-364, 370-386). In one embodiment, a camera (214) is provided adjacent device (100) to allow a therapist to detect problems and/or give advice to the patient (Fig. 2; ¶446, 454). In this way, the system facilitates feedback to the patient in the form of a marked up video image (¶475-476). Like Mackin, Einav is concerned with robot human interaction systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Einav, one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by facilitating feedback. Applying the teachings of Einav to the system of Mackin would result in a system that provides “collecting and analyzing video recordings of each participant during the performance of the method” in that operation of the system of Mackin would be adapted to facilitate feedback as per Einav.
Claim 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mackin (US Pub. No. 2017/0266077) in view of Boulanger (“The Development and Validation of the Client Expectations of Massage Scale”; International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork; Vol. 5, No. 3; 2012; pages 3-15).
As per Claim 8, Mackin discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Mackin further discloses wherein evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) uses quantitative metrics (as per “a little bit to the left” in ¶59, as per manipulation of icons 405, 401, 402, 404 in Fig. 15).
Mackin does not expressly disclose wherein evaluating the experience of each robotic touch task uses qualitative metrics.
Boulanger discloses a client expectation of massage scale (CEMS) for assessing client expectations of massage therapy and massage therapists (Purpose section and Introduction section on page 3). In one aspect, premassage expectations of pain and serenity are compared with postmassage reports of pain and serenity (Predictive Validity section on page 10, Table 6 on page 11). In this way, massage therapists may be made aware of unrealistic expectations in order to prevent disappointment (Implications for Massage Therapists section on page 12). Like Mackin, Boulanger is concerned with massage systems.
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Boulanger, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Boulanger to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by preventing disappointment. Applying the teachings of Boulanger to the system of Mackin would result in a system that operates “wherein evaluating the experience of each robotic touch task uses qualitative metrics” in that the system of Mackin would be adapted to include expectations and results measures as per Boulanger.
As per Claim 10, Mackin discloses all limitations of Claim 1. Mackin further discloses wherein evaluating (as per “During the execution of the program, the user can interrupt and modify the program as desired” in ¶70) the experience (as per 529) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56) comprises collecting a report (as per “integrated microphone to receive voice commands from the user in addition to touch commands from the user interface 46” in ¶48; as per “If the user says ‘harder’ … or the user says ‘softer’ …” in ¶63) from the participant (as per “the user can overlay the initial path on the body form of the touchpad … and then drag and/or push/pull the path to the desired size to create the calibrated path” in ¶58; as per operation of user interface touch tablet 46 in Fig. 15) on perceived comfort level (as per “to increase or decrease force/pressure” in ¶63) of each robotic touch task (as per “anatomical points (201-215) that are to be used for calibrating the programmed paths to follow by the robot end effectors” in ¶56).
Mackin does not expressly disclose using a Likert scale.
See rejection of Claim 8 for discussion of teachings of Boulanger. The premassage expectations of pain and serenity are compared with postmassage reports of pain and serenity were determined using a numerical rating scale for pain (0 = “no pain” and 10 = “worst pain possible”) and a scale for serenity (1 = “slightly or not at all” and 5 = “extremely”) (Predictive Validity section on page 10, Table 6 on page 11). Such scales are identified as Likert format (mentions of “Likert” on page 4, 5, 6).
Therefore, from these teachings of Mackin and Boulanger, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to apply the teachings of Boulanger to the system of Mackin since doing so would enhance the system by preventing disappointment. Applying the teachings of Boulanger to the system of Mackin would result in a system that operates “using a Likert scale” in that the system of Mackin would be adapted to include expectations and results measures as per Boulanger.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nissim (US Pub. No. 2001/0014781) discloses a human touch massager. Konosu (US Patent No. 6,394,731) discloses a work assist device. Fu (US Pub. No. 2013/0060171) discloses rehabilitation and training apparatus and method of controlling the same. Akiona (US Patent No. 11,992,455) discloses user adjustment of robotic massage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN HOLWERDA whose telephone number is (571)270-5747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 4:30pm.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/STEPHEN HOLWERDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights