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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the restriction of the claims to invention I (claims 1-4 and 8) and invention II (claims 5-6) in the reply filed on 04/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant’s remarks as claim 5 incorporates all limitations of claim 1, and thus shares a special technical feature with claim 1. This is found persuasive. Therefore, the restriction requirement is withdrawn. Claims 1-7 are pending in the instant application and are examined as below.
Priority
The present application is a continuation application of PCT application No.PCT/CN2024/08 1061, filed March 12, 2024, which claims priority to Chinese patent application No. 202410208049.X, filed on February 26, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “upper computer” and “lower computer” in figure 1. Paragraphs Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0107], it is unclear whether “n summary” means “In summary”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 11, --- a inputted --- should be --- an inputted ---.
In line 18 of claim 3, --- an operator's teleoperation command --- should read --- the operator's teleoperation command --- to avoid lacking of antecedent basis in the claim.
In line 5 of claim 3, --- the interactive command --- should read --- an interactive command --- to avoid lacking of antecedent basis in the claim.
Claims 4 and 8 use the term “locate-site”. It is unclear whether the term “locate-site” should read “local-site”.
In claim 5, --- a iterative force signal --- should read --- an iterative force signal ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner interprets “upper computer software”, “virtual simulation human-robot interaction software”, “lower computer software”, “force control algorithm”, “pose control algorithm”, “target recognition algorithm”, “autonomous control algorithm”, “shared control algorithm”, and “path planning algorithm” as computer implemented functions.
Claim 3 uses the terms “capable of” and “is used to”. The terms “capable of” and “is used to” only require a component to be capable of performing the claimed function. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. For example, the force control algorithm must be capable of being used to control action force, but it needs not be specifically designed to do that function. Furthermore, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “autonomous control module is used to performs autonomous path planning”. Therefore, the autonomous control module must be capable of being use to perform autonomous path planning, but it needs not be specifically designed to do that function.
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:
“communication module” in claim 1;
“haptic device drive module” in claims 1, 2;
“voice recognition module” in claims 1, 2;
“vision unit” in claim 1;
“autonomous control module” in claim 3;
“incremental control module” in claims 4, 8;
“teleoperation mapping parameter adjustment module” in claims 4, 8;
“robotic arm collision detection and warning module” in claims 4, 8.
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.
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-AIA 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “a dynamic weight distributor is capable of dynamically distributing dimensions and weights of an outputted command of each method that is mapped to a joint space of the robotic arms through the interactive command, so as to realize human-robot shared control of position, posture and contact force of the robotic arms.” Applicant has apparently not previously (or presently) described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, the caused any or all “dynamic weight distributor” to realize, using dynamically distributing dimensions and weights of an outputted command, any or all “human-robot shared control of position, posture and contact force of the robotic arms”. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”. Paragraph [0106] of the specification states, “step 3: fusing the teleoperation command qh of the operator and an autonomous command qa of the robot according to calculation results S of the dynamic weight distributor to obtain a final fusion command qc, and distributing dimensions and weights of the teleoperation command qh and the autonomous command qa mapping in a joint space of the robotic arms, so as to realize human-robot shared control of position, posture and contact force of the robotic arms, with a fusion formula as follows: qc = Sqh + (I-S)qa”, but no sufficient detail is described by what algorithm, or by what steps or procedure, position, posture and contact force of human-robot shared control are calculated based on step 3. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 7, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “when the target recognition result Ci is greater than or equal to the recognition threshold Ci, a value of S is calculated via the dynamic weight distributor based on a task type through the interactive command set by the operator in the local-site system, such that position, posture and contact force of human-robot shared control are realized”. Applicant has apparently not previously (or presently) described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, the caused any or all “dynamic weight distributor” to realize, using dynamically distributing dimensions and weights of an outputted command, any or all “human-robot shared control of position, posture and contact force of the robotic arms”. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”. Paragraph [0106] of the specification states, “step 3: fusing the teleoperation command qh of the operator and an autonomous command qa of the robot according to calculation results S of the dynamic weight distributor to obtain a final fusion command qc, and distributing dimensions and weights of the teleoperation command qh and the autonomous command qa mapping in a joint space of the robotic arms, so as to realize human-robot shared control of position, posture and contact force of the robotic arms, with a fusion formula as follows: qc = Sqh + (I-S)qa”, but no sufficient detail is described by what algorithm, or by what steps or procedure, position, posture and contact force of human-robot shared control are calculated based on step 3. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 7, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “when the target recognition result Ci is greater than or equal to the recognition threshold Ci, and S is set to a zero matrix, such that the robot fully and autonomously controls the pose and force of the robotic arms”. Applicant has apparently not previously (or presently) described, in sufficient detail, by what algorithm(s), or by what steps or procedure, to cause any or all robot, using target recognition result and S, any or all “fully and autonomously controls the pose and force of the robotic arms”. Paragraph [0105] of the specification apparently repeat the claim language, but no sufficient detail is described by what algorithm, or by what steps or procedure, the robot fully and autonomously controls the pose and force of the robotic arms based on the calculation. Accordingly, the examiner believes that applicant has not demonstrated, to those skilled in the art, possession of the full scope of the claimed invention, but has only described a “desired result”. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a). Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
The dependent claim 8 is also rejected for being dependent on a previously rejected based claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8 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.
Claim limitations “communication module”, “haptic device drive module”, “voice recognition module”, “autonomous control module”, “teleoperation mapping parameter adjustment module”, “vision unit”, and “robotic arm collision detection and warning module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For computer implemented mean-plus-function claim limitations invoking 35 USC 112(f), the supporting disclosure must clearly link the structure and the algorithm for performing the entire claimed function to the function. In figure 1, there are “upper computer” and “lower computer” labels. Paragraphs [0051, 0053] of the specification discloses “upper computer software” and “lower computer software”. However, the specification is silent regarding the upper computer and lower computer. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 1, applicant provides the claimed limitation “the robotic arms have two and is provided with a gripper at an end thereof”. The scope of the claim cannot be ascertained because it is unclear what the term “two” is referring to and further what is provided with a gripper. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether the claimed “remote-site robot” is referring to the claimed “three-arm space robot”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 2, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “the virtual simulation human-robot interaction software comprises a real-time rendered robot three-dimensional model, teleoperation mapping parameter adjustment, and collision detection and warning functions, which can provide the operator with feedback information and an interactive interface, and output an interactive command”. It is not clear what is meant by this excerpt. It is unclear the term “which” modifies “the virtual simulation human-robot interaction software”, “real-time rendered robot three-dimensional model”, “teleoperation mapping parameter adjustment”, or “collision detection and warning functions”. It is also unclear all of the functions after “which” modify “the virtual simulation human-robot interaction software”, or any of the functions after “which” is a possible function of “the virtual simulation human-robot interaction software”, “real-time rendered robot three-dimensional model”, “teleoperation mapping parameter adjustment”, or “collision detection and warning functions”. The use of the phrase “can” is indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “can” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, simply deleting the phrase). The use of the term “can” is indefinite because it is susceptible to more than ore plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that merely possibility that is not required. The verb form of the word “can” carries multiple meanings in the English language. It can be used to indicate a physical ability or some other specified capability. It can also be used to indicate a possibility or probability. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 2, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “the haptic device drive module is configured to solve a inputted pose information of the operator and output the same as an operation command”. The phrases “the same” renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "the same"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 3, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “a dynamic weight distributor is capable of dynamically distributing dimensions and weights of an outputted command of each method that is mapped to a joint space of the robotic arms through the interactive command, so as to realize human-robot shared control of position, posture and contact force of the robotic arms”. It is unclear what the term “each method” is referring to and further how the claimed “each method” is applied to calculate human-robot shared control of position, posture and contact force of the robotic arms. It is also unclear what element is modified by the term “that is”. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 5, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “[a] multimodal shared telerobotic method for the three-arm space robot of a system according to claim 1, wherein when an operator controls the remote-site robot with two robotic arms and one observation arm to perform tasks through local-site and the remote-site system, a lower computer outputs control commands of three methods , such as posture control, force control and autonomous control, to the shared control algorithm to realize a control of the robotic arms”. It is unclear whether the claimed “the remote-site robot” is referring to three-arm space robot. It is also unclear what the claimed “three methods” is referring to. Moreover, it is not clear what is meant by this excerpt, “wherein when an operator controls the remote-site robot with two robotic arms and one observation arm to perform tasks through local-site and the remote-site system, a lower computer outputs control commands of three methods, such as posture control, force control and autonomous control, to the shared control algorithm to realize a control of the robotic arms”. The scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. It is unclear whether the operator is referring to a person who does all the functions as recited in the claim. Claim 1 is directed to a system for controlling a robot. However, claim 5 is directed to a method to control the robot by an operator, i.e. a human. It is unclear whether the operator’s action is the only thing that makes the system work (e.g., a system that requires a person to do all the recited functions). Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 5, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “a command outputted by the local-site system can be read in real time”. The use of the phrase “can” is indefinite because it is unclear if applicant is intending the claim limitations using the phrase “can” to be optional or that the phrase should be interpreted as a definite statement (for example, simply deleting the phrase). The use of the term “can” is indefinite because it is susceptible to more than ore plausible construction. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to be present in the invention or whether it refers to a system capability that merely possibility that is not required. The verb form of the word “can” carries multiple meanings in the English language. It can be used to indicate a physical ability or some other specified capability. It can also be used to indicate a possibility or probability. It is also unclear what or who performs all the functions as recited in claim 5. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 5, applicant provides the claimed function, “the operator sets a target six-dimensional force signal …, reads a current force signal …, calculates an error term …, and the operator calculates an error …, substitutes the error term …, obtains a new force control command …” It is unclear whether the claimed “operator” is referring to a person. It is also unclear whether a person is doing all the function as the applicant claims. Paragraph [0075] of the specification apparently repeat the claim language, however, the specification is silent on whether a person/operator is handling all the functions as recited in the claim. The scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 6, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “wherein for the three methods integrating the pose control, the force control and the autonomous control”. It is unclear what the claimed “the three methods” is referring to and further how the claimed “the three methods” is applied to integrate the pose control, the force control and the autonomous control. It is also unclear whether the claimed “a local-site interactive command” is referring to the claimed “interactive command” in line 5 of claim 6. The applicant further provides the claimed limitation, “fusing the teleoperation command qh of the operator and the autonomous command qa of the robot to obtain a final fusion command qc according to calculation results S of the dynamic weight distributor”. It is unclear what the claimed “results S” is referring to and further how the claimed “results S” is applied to fuse the teleoperation command and the autonomous command to obtain a final fusion command. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 6, applicant provides the claimed limitation, “sending a local-site interactive command to a dynamic weight distributor to calculate a value of each diagonal element of a weight matrix S according to target recognition result Ci and a type of operation task, so as to realize dynamic updating of shared control weights during an operation process”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “type of operation task” encompass and further how the claimed “type of operation task” is applied calculate a value of each diagonal element of a weight matrix S. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 7, applicant provides the claimed limitations, “dynamic weight distributor sets S as an identity matrix”, “a value of S is calculated via the dynamic weight distributor”, and “S is set to a zero matrix”. It is unclear what the claimed “S” is referring to. The applicant further provides the claimed limitation, “a value of S is calculated via the dynamic weight distributor based on a task type through the interactive command set by the operator in the local-site system”. It is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “type of operation task” encompass and further how the claimed “type of operation task” is applied calculate a value of each diagonal element of a weight matrix S. Therefore, this renders the claim indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
The dependent claims are also rejected for being dependent on previously rejected based claim.
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mourlam et al. (US 11717969 B1, hereinafter “Mourlam”).
Regarding claim 1, Mourlam discloses a multimodal shared telerobotic system for a three-arm space robot (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 3, 4, col. 4, 5, system for controlling a three-arm space robot 100/300), at least comprising a local-site system (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 5, operator with hand controls 114, head-mounted display 116 and actuators associated with the three-arm space robot 100/300), a communication module (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 2, col. 5, “head-mounted display 116 may comprise a visual display, speakers, microphone, and any necessary processors, data storage, and communication devices described in relation to the hardware components of FIG. 2 and FIG. 7”; “In some embodiments, any communication described herein may also be performed using wireless communication between transmitters and receivers at the hand controls 114, head-mounted display 116, and aerial device 100”; Fig. 12, col. 19, network interface card (NIC) 1224), and a remote-site system (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 3, col. 6, robot system 300); wherein
the local-site system at least comprises two force-feedback haptic devices for left and right hands (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, cols. 3, 5, 14, operator 116 holds hand controls 114 that comprise any switches, buttons, knobs, and sensors for detecting movement for controlling any displays associated with head-mounted display 116 and actuators associated with the three-arm space robot 100/300, such as haptic feedback device to alert the operator of the load), a microphone array (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 5, “head-mounted display 116 may comprise … speakers, microphone …”), and an upper computer software (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 5, head-mounted display 116 comprises processors to implement functions. It is noted that upper computer software is interpreted as computer implemented function); and the upper computer software at least comprises a virtual simulation human-robot interaction software (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 18, claim 5, “wherein the head-mounted display is configured to show the images in a real-time display of virtual reality”), a haptic device drive module (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 5, hand controls 14 comprises sensors for detecting movement for controlling actuators associated with three-arm space robot 100/300, e.g., haptic feedback), and a voice recognition module (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, cols. 5, 12, head-mounted display 116 comprises microphone for voice control);
the remote-site system comprises robotic arms, an observation arm (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 3, col. 8, robotic arms 304 and 316; an observation arm 118), force sensors (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 3, col. 10, “sensors 224 may detect loads on robot system 300 for operating interlocks and initiating warnings to operator 112”), a vision unit (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 3, col. 6, camera system 118/306/308) and a lower computer software (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 2, cols. 7, 8, the three-arm space robot 100/300 comprises processors to implement functions. It is noted that lower computer software is interpreted as computer implemented function), the robotic arms have two and is provided with a gripper at an end thereof (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 3, 7, col. 15, robotic arms 304 and 310 comprise grippers 712/714/720); a stereo camera is installed at an end of the observation arm (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 3, camera 118/306/308 at an end of the observation arm 118); the lower computer software at least comprises a force control algorithm, a pose control algorithm, a target recognition algorithm, an autonomous control algorithm and a shared control algorithm (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 2, cols. 7, 8, the three-arm space robot 100/300 comprises processors to implement functions. It is noted that force control algorithm, a pose control algorithm, a target recognition algorithm, an autonomous control algorithm and a shared control algorithm are interpreted as computer implemented functions); and the vision unit is configured to provide the local-site system with visual information about a surrounding environment of a remote-site robot (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 3, cols. 6, 7, camera 118/216/306/308 captures information about an object or work environment within a field of view), and support target recognition of the autonomous control algorithm (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 3, cols. 6, 7, 16, “Robot unit 302 may observe the work environment with camera system 118 and store data indicative of the work environment. Robot unit 302 then stores where any obstacles and where the work should be performed to run through an automated sequence in the work environment”); and
the communication module is configured to construct a medium-short distance and low-latency wireless local area network to achieve wireless communication between the local-site system and the remote-site system (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 2, 3, cols. 5, 7, “In some embodiments, any communication described herein may also be performed using wireless communication between transmitters and receivers at the hand controls 114, head-mounted display 116, and aerial device 100”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mourlam et al. (US 11717969 B1, hereinafter “Mourlam”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gildert et al. (US 20220404835 A1, hereinafter “Gildert”).
Regarding claim 2, Mourlam teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Mourlam further teaches wherein in the local-site system:
the force-feedback haptic devices are configured to collect pose information inputted by an operator, receive data from the force sensors and give feedback of three-dimensional force to the operator (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 14, lines 39-59);
the microphone array is configured to collect audio signals of the operator (Mourlam, see at least Figs. 1, 2, cols. 6, 12, head-mounted display 116 may comprise a microphone for voice control);
the virtual simulation human-robot interaction software comprises a real-time rendered of an object or area scanned or viewed (Mourlam, see at least claims 9, 15, 16, col. 7, lines 20-43), teleoperation mapping parameter adjustment (Mourlam, see at Fig. 1, cols. 12, 17, 18, the virtual is configured to allow the operator to virtually update coordinate system and center of gravity when the three-arm space robot 100/300 uses a new tool), and collision detection and warning functions (Mourlam, see at Fig. 1, col. 14, “visual and audible alerts may be sent to operator 112 by hand controls 114 or head-mounted display 116”), which can provide the operator with feedback information and an interactive interface, and output an interactive command (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 14, “In some embodiments, the load data may be compared to limit load to a load threshold and haptic feedback may be provided to operator 112. For example, operator 112 may attempt to control high-dexterity manipulators 310 to a location, but an obstacle may be in the path. When high-dexterity manipulators 310 presses against the obstacle, sensor data from sensors 224 on board robot unit 302 may be compared to the input controls to determine if the actual output is aligning with the input in a feedback control loop. When it is determined that an error has taken place, hand controls 114 may vibrate to inform operator 112 that an obstacle is in the path”);
the haptic device drive module is configured to solve a inputted pose information of the operator and output the same as an operation command (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 5, “Hand controls 114 may comprise any switches, buttons, knobs, and sensors for detecting movement for controlling any displays associated with head-mounted display 116 and actuators associated with aerial device 100, robot unit 302 (FIG. 3) and high-capacity manipulator (FIG. 3)”; col. 14, lines 39-59); and
the voice recognition module is configured to analyze and output a voice command of the operator (Mourlam, see at least Fig. 1, col. 12, “operator 112 may switch modes by voice activation utilizing microphone 222 or an input on hand controls 114”).
Mourlam fails to explicitly teaches a real-time rendered robot three-dimensional model.
Gildert teaches a tele-operation system displays (e.g., on at least one display or monitor) a simulation or model of robot body (Gildert, see at least abstract, par. [0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of Mourlam to include, a real-time rendered robot three-dimensional model, as taught by Gildert. This modification allows to update the simulation in real-time as the robot explores its environment and provides more sensor data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fattey et al. (US 11559898 B2) discloses a robot machine having a machine body, at least one sensor, at least one robot processor, and at least one user processor operable to maintain a user simulation model of the robot machine and the environment surrounding the robot machine, the at least one user processor being remote from the robot machine. The system further includes at least one user interface comprising a haptic user interface operable to receive user commands and to transmit the user commands to the user simulation model, a display operable to display a virtual representation of the user simulation model.
Gildert et al. (US 11625030 B2) discloses a method and system deriving autonomous control information from the one or more sets of associated environment sensor information and device control instructions, the autonomous control information configured to facilitate generating autonomous device control signals from autonomous environment sensor information representing an environment associated with an autonomous device, the autonomous device control signals configured to cause the autonomous device to take at least one autonomous action.
Wang et al. (CN117415821A) discloses a robot control method, device and system based on force feedback and a controller, and the control method comprises the steps that tail end force data is received, and the tail end force data comes from a sensor arranged on a slave end robot; according to the tail end force data, feedback force is output through a force feedback handle, a force feedback image is generated, the feedback force is acted on an operator, and the force feedback image is used for enabling the operator to visually perceive the motion condition of the slave end robot; a control signal is generated according to the adjustment of an operator on the motion angle of the force feedback handle; and performing motion control on the simulation robot according to the control signal, mapping first motion pose data of the simulation robot into second motion pose data of the slave-end robot, and outputting the second motion pose data to the slave-end robot to enable the slave-end robot to move along with the second motion pose data. Therefore, an operator can more intuitively perceive the motion condition of the slave-end robot and adjust the control instruction in real time.
Wang et al. (US 20160229050 A1) discloses a system comprising an operator input device structured to move in response to operator-applied force and to selectably output feedback force to the operator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG DANG whose telephone number is (703)756-1049. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/TRANG DANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights