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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02 April 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority / National Stage Entry / Effective Filing Date
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a 371 national stage entry to PCT/CN2023/136847, filed on 06 December 2023, claiming foreign priority to application CN202211625382.8, filed 16 December 2022. As such, the effective filing date of the instant claims is 16 December 2022.
Claim Interpretation
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 examiner notes that claims 1 and 2 make reference to a "tote robot". The examiner notes that, currently, there is no structural distinction between a "tote robot" and a generic robot and is merely interpreted as an intended use of the robot. Thus, the examiner will consider any robot to read upon this language.
The examiner notes that applicant is their own lexicographer. Claim 2 recites the language "…drive the mechanical finger to find the first limit position…" and "…drive the mechanical finger to find the second limit position…"; the examiner is interpreting this language to merely state that the mechanical finger is driven to reach a first limit position and a second limit position, respectively.
Claim 2 states "wherein the first limit position is opposite to the second limit position"; the examiner is broadly interpreting this language to not limit it to a 180 degree opening (opposing directions on a line) but wherein the opening position is opposite to the closing position at any angle, as outlined in the instant specification, for instance in paragraph [0067].
The examiner notes that the claims make reference to opening and/or closing angles. As a finger is recited (see Figure [2], for instance), either end of the rotational motion may be "open" or "shut"; thus this terminology is broadly interpreted.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3: Claim 3 mistakenly includes "and" prior to the "outputting fault…" step. As the "outputting fault…" step is the penultimate limitation, the "and" after the first limitation is improper.
Claim 5: Claim 5 states "…adjustment of the second duty cycle…", but claim 5 depends upon claim 1 and neither claim 5 nor claim 1 initiate the term "second duty cycle"; the language lacks antecedent basis. The examiner recommends either amending claim 5 to depend upon claim 4 or amend "the" second duty cycle to "a" second duty cycle.
Claim 6: Claim 6 states "obtain a mechanical limit interval of the mechanical finger…"; however, the mechanical finger lacks antecedent basis. The examiner recommends amendment to "a mechanical finger" at first instance of the phrase.
Claim 7: Claim 7 states "obtain a mechanical limit interval of the mechanical finger…"; however, the mechanical finger lacks antecedent basis. The examiner recommends amendment to "a mechanical finger" at first instance of the phrase.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5 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.
ISSUE 1: Claim 2: Claim 2 recites "performing, by a controller of the mechanical finger, power-on initialization after the tote robot is powered on;". The examiner notes that the aforementioned language (especially the underlined portion) is unclear to the point of indefiniteness. The examiner is unsure what constitutes a "power-on initialization" after the robot is powered on. Applicant appears to be claiming a particular step or process that is performed between initial startup/energization and prior to obtaining mechanical limit information, but does not disclose (explicitly in the claim or otherwise explicitly in the specification) what the steps include for a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand exactly what is claimed. The examiner consulted the specification and found mere reference to a power-on initialization in paragraphs [0013, 0075, 0095, 0103, 0121, 0129] but none of the aforementioned paragraphs clarify what the power-on initialization actually is. As the claim does not clearly and explicitly describe the claimed invention, the specification does not provide the basis for understanding, and a well-understood "power-on initialization" process is not known, the claim language renders the claim indefinite. For prior art purposes the examiner will consider any discussion of applying power to the robot to read upon this limitation, as sending power via signal/power cable reasonably reads upon an initialization (in basic terms, user flips switch/robot powered on, power is sent to robot/power-on initialization).
As claims 3-4 depend upon claim 2 and do not resolve the above-noted issue, they are rejected due to dependency.
ISSUE 2: Claim 3: Claim 3 recites "…controlling the reduction motor to operate in a locked mode to wait for the control instruction…". The examiner notes that the aforementioned language is unclear to the point of indefiniteness. The examiner is unsure what constitutes a "locked mode" versus any other "mode"; is it complete stoppage of movement, operating at a reduced speed, preventing further commands but permitting current commands to be carried out, or any number of an infinite number of possibilities? The examiner consulted the specification for support, but only found paragraphs [0019, 0023, 0107, 0109, 0119, 0136], which merely describe that the mode exists to "wait for the control instruction" with no further clarification. In the event that complete stoppage is intended (for which, the examiner cannot locate support in the specification), then "controlling the reduction motor to operate in a locked mode" is counter-intuitive. If stoppage is desired, then "controlling…to operate" reasonably indicates that continued operation of some sort results. Ultimately, the phrase renders the claim indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application.
ISSUE 3: Claim 5: Claim 5 recites "…controlling the reduction motor to operate in a locked mode to wait for the control instruction…". The examiner notes that the aforementioned language is unclear to the point of indefiniteness. The examiner is unsure what constitutes a "locked mode" versus any other "mode"; is it complete stoppage of movement, operating at a reduced speed, preventing further commands but permitting current commands to be carried out, or any number of an infinite number of possibilities? The examiner consulted the specification for support, but only found paragraphs [0019, 0023, 0107, 0109, 0119, 0136], which merely describe that the mode exists to "wait for the control instruction" with no further clarification. In the event that complete stoppage is intended (for which, the examiner cannot locate support in the specification), then "controlling the reduction motor to operate in a locked mode" is counter-intuitive. If stoppage is desired, then "controlling…to operate" reasonably indicates that continued operation of some sort results. Ultimately, the phrase renders the claim indefinite and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application.
ISSUE 4: Claim 5: Claim 5 recites "detecting whether there is any deviation during execution of an action by the mechanical finger". The examiner notes that the aforementioned language (especially the underlined portion) is unclear to the point of indefiniteness. The term "deviation" implies a known parameter and a difference between the parameter and another value. Neither the claim nor the specification discusses 1) what value (position, angle, power applied, angular velocity, etc.) is being measured/analyzed and 2) what the deviation is measured against (a measured value versus a preset value, etc.). The specification discusses deviation in paragraphs [0022-0023, 0050, 0118-0119, 0139-0140] but does not disclose what the deviation is in regards to, nor how the comparison is judged.
Therefore, the examiner notes that the above-noted phrases are indefinite and fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention of the instant application. Consistent with USPTO examination practices, for purposes of compact prosecution, the claim limitations will be treated as best understood by the Examiner, which according to broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), would mean that the examiner could follow any one or more of the interpretations discussed above.
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.
Claims, 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO2019140655A1; published 25 July 2019, provided with this office action as an English translation, hereinafter Wang) in view of Truebenbach et al. (US 2022/0402127 A1; filed 20 Nov 2020, hereinafter Truebenbach).
Regarding independent claims 1 (method), 6 (apparatus), and 7 (apparatus, Non-Transitory Memory): Wang discloses A method for controlling a [mechanical finger], wherein the [mechanical finger] is disposed on a tote robot, and the method comprises: (per claim 1) (The examiner notes that “disposed on a tote robot” does not particularly limit the claim language, as a “tote robot” does not have a particular structure differentiating it from other robots; it is interpreted instead as an intended use and not afforded significant patentable weight. As an example, the disclosure of Wang pertains to a drone carrying/“toting” a camera, and may thus be a “tote robot”. Paragraph [0029, 0084] and Figure [6], Wang discloses a method for controlling a motor) / An electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory connected to the processor, wherein the memory is configured to store computer-executable instructions; and the processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory to: (per claim 6) (Paragraph [0054, 0098-0102], Wang discloses an electronic device with a processor and memory housing instructions) / A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions therein, and a processor, when executing the computer-executable instructions, is configured to: (per claim 7) (Paragraph [0054, 0098-0102], Wang discloses an electronic device with a processor and memory housing instructions)
obtaining a mechanical limit interval of the [mechanical finger] in response to a control instruction; (per claim 1) / obtain a mechanical limit interval of the [mechanical finger] in response to a control instruction; (per claim 6) / obtain a mechanical limit interval of the [mechanical finger] in response to a control instruction; (per claim 7) (Paragraph [0085, 0087, 0103-0105], Wang discloses obtaining a mechanical limit in response to a control instruction)
determining a limit position within the mechanical limit interval and an avoidance angle corresponding to the limit position; (per claim 1) / determine a limit position within the mechanical limit interval and an avoidance angle corresponding to the limit position; (per claim 6) / determine a limit position within the mechanical limit interval and an avoidance angle corresponding to the limit position; (per claim 7) (Paragraph [0055-0056, 0063, 0128], Wang discloses determining a position/angle corresponding to an avoidance angle determined within the mechanical limit interval)
determining, based on the limit position and the avoidance angle corresponding to the limit position, an opening/closing angle of the [mechanical finger]; and (per claim 1) / determine, based on the limit position and the avoidance angle corresponding to the limit position, an opening/closing angle of the [mechanical finger]; and (per claim 6) / determine, based on the limit position and the avoidance angle corresponding to the limit position, an opening/closing angle of the [mechanical finger]; and (per claim 7) (First, the examiner notes that “opening/closing angle” merely pertains to the motor’s first direction (arbitrarily an opening direction) and second direction (arbitrarily a closing direction). Paragraph [0055-0056, 0063, 0128], Wang discloses an opening/closing angle based upon the limit position and corresponding avoidance angle, such as in paragraph [0056] “For example, when the mechanical limit of the upper limit of the pitch axis is 30 degrees, and the terminal device sets the avoidance angle of the upper limit of the pitch axis to 29 degrees, the gimbal will automatically stop rotating upward when it reaches 29 degrees to avoid hitting the limit”)
controlling, based on the opening/closing angle, a reduction motor to drive the [mechanical finger] to execute an opening action or a closing action. (per claim 1) / control, based on the opening/closing angle, a reduction motor to drive the [mechanical finger] to execute an opening action or a closing action. (per claim 6) / control, based on the opening/closing angle, a reduction motor to drive the [mechanical finger] to execute an opening action or a closing action. (per claim 7) (Paragraph [0029, 0055-0056, 0063, 0090, 0097, 0128], Wang discloses control of the motor (reasonably a reduction motor) to rotate using the established limits)
The examiner notes Wang merely differs from the instant claims in that the application of the particular motor is to a gimbal device rather than a mechanical finger joint. However, the examiner notes that this is considered merely applying the disclosure of Wang to an analogous problem, falling under the guidance of Paragraph [0030] of Wang, stating “As those skilled in the art will know, with the evolution of system architecture and the emergence of new business scenarios, the technical solutions provide by the embodiments of the present invention are also applicable to similar technical problems.” A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have understood that the inventive concept of the instant claims merely pertain to establishing limits of a rotary motor; whether the motor controls a finger, a link of an articulated arm, a wheel, or a gimbal merely changes its intended use and does not change how the method/apparatus steps are carried out.
Thus, Truebenbach, solving a similar problem of motor limitation, teaches the understanding of mechanical limits and soft limits in mechanical finger on a robot applications (Paragraph [0090, 0184, 0196, 0199, 0206], Truebenbach teaches hard stops and travel limits of joints in a manipulator having a single finger end effector)
Wang and Truebenbach solve a similar problem of limiting motor rotation position. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Wang to apply the motor limits to a motor used with a mechanical finger, as taught by Truebenbach, as this merely changes the intended use of the invention. As outlined above, Wang merely differs from the instant claims in that the motor of Wang is used for a gimbal rather than a mechanical finger. However, Wang does not limit the disclosure to such (Paragraph [0030], Wang) and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have found it obvious to apply the calibration and limiting procedure of Wang to a large variety of motors, including a motor used with a mechanical finger. Truebenbach is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art of mechanical fingers to apply hard stops and joint limits in the interest of preventing collision and simple/accurate position control (Truebenbach, Paragraph [0196, 0199], for instance). This constitutes applying a known technique (the control scheme of Wang) to a known device (a mechanical finger of Truebenbach) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Truebenbach in view of Zhang et al. (US 2007/0084613 A1; published 19 Apr 2007, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 2: Parent claim 1 is unpatentable over Wang in view of Truebenbach. Wang further discloses wherein the limit position comprises: a first limit position and a second limit position, and before the obtaining a mechanical limit interval of the [mechanical finger] in response to a control instruction, the method further comprises: (Paragraph [0037, 0057, 0085, 0089-0090, 0097, 0136], Wang discloses mechanical limits and avoidance angles in both opposing directions following a control instruction)
performing, by a controller of the mechanical finger, power-on initialization after the tote robot is powered on; (Paragraph [0061-0062], Wang discloses an initialization of the calibration process (a power-on calibration) before controlling the joints/motors, and as the control scheme enters a calibration mode, it is clear that the component is powered on)
controlling, based on a first [duty cycle] and a first driving direction, the reduction motor to drive the [mechanical finger] to find the first limit position; and (Paragraph [0008, 0045, 0085], Wang discloses controlling the motor to rotate in a first direction to drive the motor to a limit at a pre-set speed)
controlling, based on the first [duty cycle] and a second driving direction, the reduction motor to drive the [mechanical finger] to find the second limit position, wherein the first limit position is opposite to the second limit position, and the second driving direction is opposite to the first driving direction. (Paragraph [0089-0090], Wang discloses operating the motor in the opposing direction to locate the opposite limit)
Wang differs from the claimed invention in two ways: 1) Driving a mechanical finger (in the instant claims) versus a gimbal (in the case of Wang) and 2) control of the motor with a first duty cycle.
Regarding 1) and as noted above, Truebenbach, solving a similar problem of motor limitation, teaches the understanding of mechanical limits and soft limits in mechanical finger and robot applications (Paragraph [0090, 0184, 0196, 0199, 0206], Truebenbach teaches hard stops and travel limits of joints in a manipulator having a single finger end effector)
Wang and Truebenbach solve a similar problem of limiting motor rotation position. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Wang to apply the motor limits to a motor used with a mechanical finger, as taught by Truebenbach, as this merely changes the intended use of the invention. As outlined above, Wang merely differs from the instant claims in that the motor of Wang is used for a gimbal rather than a mechanical finger. However, Wang does not limit the disclosure to such (Paragraph [0030], Wang) and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, would have found it obvious to apply the calibration and limiting procedure of Wang to a large variety of motors, including a motor used with a mechanical finger. Truebenbach is merely relied upon to show that it was known in the art of mechanical fingers to apply hard stops and joint limits in the interest of preventing collision and simple/accurate position control (Truebenbach, Paragraph [0196, 0199], for instance). This constitutes applying a known technique (the control scheme of Wang) to a known device (a mechanical finger of Truebenbach) to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding 2), the examiner submits that it is implicit that a first duty cycle is disclosed, as Wang discloses moving the motor at a certain speed (Wang, Paragraph [0045]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that a motor be driven at a first duty cycle in the event that it utilizes pulse width modulation (PWM, a well-known, routine, and conventional way of controlling a motor), a well-known form of control, to control movement of the motor.
To prove this assertion, Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor of motor control systems, teaches a duty cycle proportional to motor speed (Paragraph [0033], Zhang teaches “For example, DC operated motors are often controlled by pulse width modulation, where the duty cycle of the modulation is proportional the speed of the motor”)
Wang and Zhang are in a similar field of endeavor of motor control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Wang to explicitly correlate speed with duty cycle (as taught by Zhang), as this merely incorporates a well-understood, routine, and conventional concept well-known to a person having ordinary skill in the art to discuss the proportionality of duty cycle to speed of a motor. As Wang discloses that the motor is operated at a first speed (Wang, Paragraph [0045]), it is implicit that a PWM signal including duty cycle (taught by Zhang) is one of the well-known, routine, and conventional ways of producing this motion. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Wang in view of Truebenbach in view of Zhang. Wang further discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the first limit position and the second limit position, a rotation angle of the reduction motor; and (Paragraph [0045, 0056, 0060], Wang discloses determining position/angle based on the limits determined)
outputting fault alarm information to report a fault of the reduction motor, if the rotation angle of the reduction motor exceeds a preset angle range during the finding of the limit position; and (Paragraph [0059-0060, 0073], Wang discloses making a reasonableness judgement (reasonably a “fault alarm information to report a fault”) based on an angle determined within a preset range)
writing a position servo control parameter into a control program of the controller, if the rotation angle of the reduction motor does not exceed the preset angle range during the finding of the limit position, and controlling the reduction motor to operate in a locked mode to wait for the control instruction, wherein the position servo control parameter comprises: the first limit position and the second limit position and avoidance angles respectively corresponding to the first limit position and the second limit position. (Paragraph [0054, 0059-0062, 0087, 0090-0091], Wang discloses storing mechanical limits (writing a control parameter) and only when the limit is reasonable is the avoidance angle determined and stored. Regarding “operate in a locked mode”, the examiner notes that the aforementioned phrase renders the claim indefinite. However, operating per instruction of the user may constitute “in a locked mode” as the device is not making further outside control decisions/movements and any of the series of control steps described following initiation also constituting “wait for the control instruction”. Finally, Wang discloses determining the limits at each opposing direction)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Truebenbach in view of Zhang in further view of Lee et al. (US 2010/0026230 A1; published 04 Feb 2010, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 4: Parent claim 2 is unpatentable over Wang in view of Truebenbach in view of Zhang. Wang does not explicitly disclose adjusting the duty cycle/speed.
As a preliminary matter and to reiterate the rationale provided in the parent claim, the examiner submits that it is implicit that a first duty cycle is disclosed in Wang, as Wang discloses moving the motor at a certain speed (Wang, Paragraph [0045]). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that a motor be driven at a first duty cycle in the event that it utilizes pulse width modulation (PWM, a well-known, routine, and conventional way of controlling a motor), a well-known form of control, to control movement of the motor.
To prove this assertion, Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor of motor control systems, teaches a duty cycle proportional to motor speed (Paragraph [0033], Zhang teaches “For example, DC operated motors are often controlled by pulse width modulation, where the duty cycle of the modulation is proportional the speed of the motor”)
Wang and Zhang are in a similar field of endeavor of motor control systems. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Wang to explicitly correlate speed with duty cycle (as taught by Zhang), as this merely incorporates a well-understood, routine, and conventional concept well-known to a person having ordinary skill in the art to discuss the proportionality of duty cycle to speed of a motor. As Wang discloses that the motor is operated at a first speed (Wang, Paragraph [0045]), it is implicit that a PWM signal including duty cycle (taught by Zhang) is one of the well-known, routine, and conventional ways of producing this motion. This constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods to produce predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Lee, in a similar field of endeavor of motor control, teaches wherein the method further comprises: triggering adjustment of the first [duty cycle] to a second [duty cycle] while obtaining the mechanical limit interval of the [mechanical finger], to perform position servo control on the [mechanical finger] in a state of the second [duty cycle], wherein the second [duty cycle] is [greater] than the first [duty cycle]. (Paragraph [0023, 0026-0027], Lee teaches PWM signals controlling the motor, indicating duty cycles in use, with the parent claim rationale applied (Paragraph [0023]). Lee further teaches variable speed control, such as the low-speed mode while finding the limits)
Wang and Lee are in a similar field of endeavor of motor control. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Wang with a variable speed mode taught by Lee, to utilize a variable speed mode in the interest of precision (Lee, Paragraph [0023]). While Lee discusses the case of using a low speed (less than) mode for the calibration procedure, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found any variation of speed to be an obvious modification based on motor capability, the desire to optimize time, etc. Lee is merely relied upon to show that variable speed motor calibration was known in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable rationale to combine, and a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have been able to make this combination with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in addition to being objected to; however, claim 5 is not being rejected by prior art.
The following is an examiner's reasoning for why there are no prior art rejections being made:
The prior art of record does not disclose each and every limitation in such a way that would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to arrive at the claimed invention. A hypothetical prior art rejection would require impermissible hindsight reasoning. Specifically, the following underlined limitations are novel and non-obvious:
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein after the controlling, based on the opening/closing angle, a reduction motor to drive the mechanical finger to execute an opening action or a closing action, the method further comprises:
detecting whether there is any deviation during execution of an action by the mechanical finger, and whether rotation duration of the reduction motor exceeds predetermined duration; and
triggering, if it is determined that there is deviation during the execution of the action, and/or the rotation duration exceeds the predetermined duration, adjustment of the second duty cycle to a third duty cycle, and controlling the reduction motor to operate in a locked mode to wait for a new control instruction, wherein the third duty cycle is less than the second duty cycle.
The examiner does not consider the claim to merely recite generic variability in speed/velocity. Rather, there is a distinct claim to reduction in velocity following a particular determination that a rotation duration exceeds a predetermined duration. The examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily find it obvious to, when a motor's movement fails to achieve a movement within a prescribed duration of time, further decrease the speed rather than speed up the motor or completely stop the motor. While the examiner notes that mere variation of the duty cycle is an obvious variation of Wang (hence the above prior art rejections to claims 2 and 4), to not only vary the duty cycle, but further to provide a set decrease pending a specific condition of noting a duration exceeding a predetermined duration, would require impermissible hindsight to incorporate. The examiner performed a search and was unable to locate art which, alone or in reasonable obvious combination, disclosed, taught, suggested, or rendered obvious the claimed invention when considered alone and as a whole.
References
Further references that discuss prior art, but were not relied upon for creation of this office action are provided below:
#
Publication Number
Title
Inventor
Dates
Description of Relevance
1
US 2010/0119355 A1
CALIBRATION OF AN ACTUATOR FOR A
VARABLE GEOMETRY TURBINE
Cox
Filed: 19 Jan 2010
Pub: 13 May 2010
Discusses a form of calibration for a rotational element comprising rotation in two opposing directions until a stop is reached.
2
US 2023/0158672 A1
ROBOT OBSTACLE AVOIDANCE METHOD,
COMPUTER READABLE STORAGE
MEDIUM, AND ROBOT
Liu et al.
Filed: 03 Nov 2022
Pub: 25 May 2023
Discusses a robot with joint motion upper and lower limits and corrections/modifications to the limits.
3
US 2018/0113462 A1
POSITION - BASED SOFT STOP FOR A 3 - AXIS
GIMBAL
Fenn et al.
Filed: 20 Oct 2017
Pub: 26 Apr 2018
Discusses a gimbal/joint with lower and upper limit soft stops within the range of the mechanical stops.
4
US 2006/0049789 A1
ACTUATOR POSITION CONTROL SYSTEM
Keefover et al.
Filed: 03 Aug 2005
Pub: 09 Mar 2006
Discusses determination of soft stops within the range of motion (including mechanical limits) of a motor/actuator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights