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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on July 27, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-12 are pending.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
In respond to applicant's arguments based on the filed amendment with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of said previous office action have been fully considered; however, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bogart et al. US2021/0001484 (“Bogart”) in view of Takeuchi US2017/0266816 (“Takeuchi”) and further in view of Backes et al. USPN: 5,499,320 (“Backes”).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 7, 12. Bogart discloses a method for controlling an articulated robot with seven or more joints ([0049] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a robot system in accordance with the invention comprised primarily of a robot arm 68 and a control system including computer 52. The elongate arm 68 is comprised of multiple joint modules 54 coupled in series and including an initial module (joint 1) at the arm proximal end, one or more intermediate modules, and a final module (joint 7) at the arm distal end. The preferred embodiment described herein employs seven joint modules but it should be understood that a lesser or greater number of joint modules can be used.), the method comprising:
repeating unit processing including: computation processing for: computing a displacement of each of the seven or more joints by use of computation of inverse kinematics ([0063] The inverse kinematic calculation takes as input the desired Cartesian coordinates of the distal end of the robot arm, and calculates the individual positions of each revolute joint 54 that are required in order to position the distal end of the robot arm 68 in the required Cartesian position. After moving the robot arm 68 to the new Cartesian position, the process is repeated: waiting for another tap to be detected by the accelerometer 76. In alternative embodiments of the invention, it is possible to combine the readings of accelerometers 76 from multiple joints 54 to detect the direction of the taps with greater precision. Such greater precision allow the distal end of the robot arm 68 to be commanded to move in a simultaneous combination of Cartesian directions.); and
updating a joint value of each of the seven or more joints based on the computed displacement thereof ([0064] the robot arm may be easily displaced 120 from its resting position by the application of forces, by a human operator, to any part of the robot arm 68. In the present invention, additional currents are added to the previously calculated Zero-G currents and applied to the robot joints 54. The additional currents are responsive and substantially proportional to any displacements of the each robot joint 54 from its initial rest position. As a consequence, the further the robot arm 68 is displaced from its resting position, the greater the current applied to, and torque delivered from, each robot joint 54. The increased torque output from each robot joint 54 acts in a direction opposite to the displacement of the robot arm forcing it back toward its rest position.); and
fixation processing to be performed on a joint in a specific state from among the seven or more
joints, wherein the specific state is determined based on a joint value of the joint in the specific state ([0061-0062] [0062] FIG. 8 shows the control tablet being tilted and rotated by a human operator 110 for the purpose of affecting the position and orientation of the distal end of the robot arm. Depressing a trigger button 112 on the tablet activates the control mode making the robot arm responsive to the physical movements of the control tablet. Releasing the trigger button 112 prevents the robot from being responsive to the physical movements of the control tablet. FIG. 9 illustrates the movements of the distal end of the robot arm in response to the physical movements of the control tablet 56 while the trigger button 112 is depressed. FIG. 10 is a flow chart of the control algorithm used by the control computer 52 for directing the motion of the distal end of the robot arm in response to the motions of the control tablet 56.),
Bogart does not explicitly discloses:
wherein when the fixation processing is performed, the computation processing includes changing, from among the seven or more joints, joint values of respective joints in a non-specific state, without substantially changing the joint value of the joint in the specific state.
Takeuchi teaches another robotic articulating control system and method that computation processing includes changing, from among the seven or more joints, joint values of respective joints in a non-specific state, without substantially changing the joint value of the joint in the specific state ([0120, 0137, 0143-0153] FIG. 10 shows an example of the fourth variable range calculated based on the second threshold values designated on the W-axis of the joint coordinate system J4C. FIG. 10 shows a state of the joint J4 in the case where the control point T is allowed to coincide with the taught point P2 shown in FIG. 4. The joint coordinate system J4C shown in FIG. 10 is the joint coordinate system J4C associated with the joint J4 as described above. In the example shown in FIG. 10, the rotation angle of the joint J4 is a rotation angle θ10. An auxiliary line HL4 extending from the origin of the joint coordinate system J4C is an auxiliary line drawn for clearly showing the rotation angle θ10 of the joint J4 in the joint coordinate system J4C.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Bogart by incorporating the applied teaching of Takeuchi to improve the robotic motion control and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Bogart further silent to computation of inverse kinematics with a Jacobian matrix including multiple elements and the fixation processing includes setting, from among the multiple elements for the Jacobian matrix, an element of the joint in the specific state to a value of zero, to remain the joint value of the joint in the specific state unchanged. Backes teaches another robotic joint control system and method that computation of inverse kinematics with a Jacobian matrix including multiple elements and the fixation processing includes setting, from among the multiple elements for the Jacobian matrix, an element of the joint in the specific state to a value of zero, to remain the joint value of the joint in the specific state unchanged (Col. 7 line 55-col. 8, line 15, By setting W.sub.T to identity and W.sub.V to zero a standard inverse Jacobian result is provided with the same algorithm. The present implementation utilizes joint position servos so the joint velocity commands are integrated to generate the joint position commands. Col. 9 lines 45-60, In the alternative approach, a reference (desired) force is specified and the difference between the reference and actual forces is used on the right side of Equation 1. Then exact force control is possible by setting the reference stiffness, K, and the reference trajectory velocity and acceleration to zero in force controlled DOFs. Assuming that the environment can be modeled as a stiffness with spring constant k.sub.env, the applied force in a DOF will be)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system and method of Bogart by incorporating the applied teaching of Backes to improve the robotic joint control and one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim(s) 2. Bogart in view of Takeuchi and Backes further teaches wherein the joint value of the joint in the specific state takes, within a range of motion for the joint, a value of a boundary range between an inside and outside of the range of motion (Takeuchi: [0120, 0137] the robot control apparatus 30 moves the control point T to the corrected taught point, the abnormality processing may have a configuration of not moving the control point T to the outside of the variable range RA3 such as a configuration of recalculating a position of an intersection between a boundary surface between the outside of the variable range RA3 and the variable range RA3 and a line connecting from the current position of the control point T to the position of the corrected taught point as the position of the corrected taught point. In the case of recalculation of the position of the corrected taught point, the robot control apparatus 30 allows the control point T to coincide with the corrected taught point in the recalculated position. In this manner, the robot control apparatus 30 may restrict the actions of the robot with respect to each of the X-axis and the Y-axis of the robot coordinate system RC.).
Regarding claim(s) 3. Bogart in view of Takeuchi and Backes further teaches wherein: the updating in previous unit processing updates joint values of the seven or more joints to first joint values, when the joint in the specific state is included in the seven or more joints, the unit processing further includes: returning the updated first joint values by the previous unit processing to pre- updated second joint values; identifying, based on the updated first joint values, the joint in the specific state to be subjected to the fixation processing; and performing the computation processing after the fixation processing (Takeuchi: [0112] [0112] FIG. 4 shows an example of a provisional variable range calculated based on the first threshold values designated with respect to each of the X-axis and the Y-axis of the taught point coordinate system. The provisional variable range refers to a variable range of the control values calculated for calculation of the first variable range. In FIG. 4, a taught point P1 is a taught point designated by the previous position control or a corrected taught point obtained by correction of the taught point by the previous force control in the robot control apparatus 30. In the example shown in FIG. 4, the control point T coincides with the taught point P1.).
Regarding claim(s) 4. Bogart in view of Takeuchi and Backes further teaches further comprising changing the joint value of the joint in the specific state, wherein, when the joint in the specific state is included in the seven or more joints in an initial state, the initial state coming before repetition of the unit processing, the changing changes the joint value of the joint in the specific state to a joint value corresponding to the non-specific state before first-time unit processing of the repeated unit processing (Bogart: [0063] The inverse kinematic calculation takes as input the desired Cartesian coordinates of the distal end of the robot arm, and calculates the individual positions of each revolute joint 54 that are required in order to position the distal end of the robot arm 68 in the required Cartesian position. After moving the robot arm 68 to the new Cartesian position, the process is repeated: waiting for another tap to be detected by the accelerometer 76. In alternative embodiments of the invention, it is possible to combine the readings of accelerometers 76 from multiple joints 54 to detect the direction of the taps with greater precision. Such greater precision allow the distal end of the robot arm 68 to be commanded to move in a simultaneous combination of Cartesian directions.).
Regarding claim(s) 6. Bogart in view of Takeuchi and Backes further teaches wherein the joints include at least one prismatic joint (Bogart: [0050] As seen in FIG. 4, each joint module 54 in the preferred embodiment includes a motor for driving a rotary actuator, for example, the output of a gear train.).
Regarding claim(s) 11. Bogart in view of Takeuchi and Backes further teaches a method for manufacturing an object, comprising assembling or removing a component by the robot system according to claim 7 (Bogart: [0038] FIG. 17B is a flow chart of the logic employed by the system computer as it automatically builds the portion of the program which acquires (picks) objects to be moved by the robot arm;).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRUC M DO whose telephone number is (571)270-5962. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramón Mercado, Ph.D. can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRUC M DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
