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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 11 June 2025, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 June 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims “time data indicating an update interval used to control the kinematic structure”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation encompass, and therefore claim 1 is rejected under this section. Specifically, it is unclear to which technical value of which means does the update interval refer to, and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear, based on the currently provided claim language, how a collision-free state of the kinematic structure is determined, and further how a collision avoidance for a kinematic structure is achieved, as there is no limitation (i.e. means, step, etc.) for identifying a possible collision or identifying possible collision objects when moving the kinematic structure (i.e. robot arm) to a desired pose, and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant claims “performing a constrained optimization process…” however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “constrained optimization process” encompass, and therefore claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, based on said currently provided claim language, it is unclear what is actually being optimized and further what requisite parameters are utilized in performing/executing said optimization process, and as such claim 1 is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 2-15 and 19, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 1, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant claims “time data indicating an update interval used to control the kinematic structure”, however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation encompass, and therefore claim 16 is rejected under this section. Specifically, it is unclear to which technical value of which means does the update interval refer to, and therefore claim 16 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear, based on the currently provided claim language, how a collision-free state of the kinematic structure is determined, and further how a collision avoidance for a kinematic structure is achieved, as there is no limitation (i.e. means, step, etc.) for identifying a possible collision or identifying possible collision objects when moving the kinematic structure (i.e. robot arm) to a desired pose, and therefore claim 16 is rendered indefinite. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant claims “perform a constrained optimization process…” however, based on the currently provided claim language, it is unclear what the metes and bounds regarding the claimed “constrained optimization process” encompass, and therefore claim 16 is rendered indefinite. Specifically, based on said currently provided claim language, it is unclear what is actually being optimized and further what requisite parameters are utilized in performing/executing said optimization process, and as such claim 16 is rejected under this section. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon independent claim 16, and therefore are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim. Accordingly, appropriate correction and/or clarification are earnestly solicited.
Examiner notes wherein the claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC 112(b), or second paragraph rejections provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (“Redundant Arm Kinematic Control With Recurrent Loop”, Neural Networks, Elsevier Science Publishers, Barking, GB, vol. 7, no. 4, 1 January 1994, pages 643-659, XP000445903, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method of collision avoidance for a kinematic structure (abstract, specifically wherein “the proposed method is effective for the real-time kinematic control of a redundant arm as well as the real-time generation of collision-free joint trajectories”), comprising:
receiving pose data indicating a desired pose for the kinematic structure (at least as in page 653, Section 5. Simulation, paragraph 2, wherein “For the simulation, the initial joint configuration and the final (desired) Cartesian end-effector position were given as inputs.”) and time data indicating an update interval used to control the kinematic structure (at least as in page 648, Section 3. Convergence Stability and Update Intervals, paragraph 1, wherein “the input vector update based on either eqns (23)-(26) or (31) is performed in discrete time by a computer. In this case, especially near singular points, is required for achieving convergence stability.”, i.e. the update interval is defined based on the discrete time needed by the controlling computer to update the input vector, e.g. the operating frequency of the computer or the bus frequency in case of remote sensors);
performing a constrained optimization process on inverse kinematics of the desired pose (at least as in page 654, paragraph 2, wherein “Collision-free path planning of a redundant arm can be done by searching for a path of minimal potentials under the constraints of arm kinematics as well as in compromise with other performance indices (e.g., for joint configuration optimization)”) in accordance with the time data to obtain for the respective update interval one or more kinematic chain parameters for a collision-free state of the kinematic structure (at least as in page 653, Section 5. Simulation, paragraph 2, wherein “For the simulation, the initial joint configuration and the final (desired) Cartesian end-effector position were given as inputs.” and further wherein “The first and second cases were intended for comparison of the proposed scheme based on the pseudoinverse of the gradient of Lyapunov function with the conventional schemes based on the pseudoinverse of Jacobian or the Jacobian transpose. For all cases, the update interval is selected based on eqns (60) and (61)…In practice, the update interval is determined by multiplying some constant factor to the result from eqn (61).”); and
generating control data for controlling the kinematic structure based on the one or more kinematic chain parameters (at least as in pages 654-655, Section 5. Simulation, wherein “Simulated joint configurations are generated based on eqns (23)-(26) with consideration of joint limits and obstacle avoidance.” and further as in page 658, Section 6. Conclusion, wherein “Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method is effective for real-time kinematic control of a redundant arm, as well as for real-time generation of collision-free joint trajectories”).
Regarding claim 2, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process utilizes one or more constraints separating an admissible, collision-free space of the kinematic structure from a non-collision-free, forbidden space of the kinematic structure (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 3, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process comprises solving a number of objectives for one or more of self-collision avoidance, joint-collision avoidance and obstacle-collision avoidance to obtain optimized one or more kinematic chain parameters (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 4, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process utilizes a number of cost functions and/or constraints to solve the number of objectives (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 5, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process comprises determining such kinematic chain parameters and/or states of the kinematic structure that do not violate one or more constraints for the collision-free state to obtain optimized one or more kinematic chain parameters (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 6, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process comprises penalizing closeness of elements within a kinematic chain of the kinematic structure to each other to obtain optimized one or more kinematic chain parameters (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 7, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process comprises penalizing closeness of the kinematic structure to an obstacle to obtain optimized one or more kinematic chain parameters (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 8, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process comprises penalizing such kinematic chain parameters and/or states of the kinematic structure that violate one or more constraints for hardware limitations of the kinematic structure to obtain optimized one or more kinematic chain parameters (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 9, Lee further teaches wherein the one or more constraints for hardware limitations comprises one or more of a joint angle limit, a joint position limit, a joint velocity limit and a joint acceleration limit (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 10, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process comprises penalizing such kinematic chain parameters and/or states of the kinematic structure that violate one or more constraints for acceleration limits of the kinematic chain of the kinematic structure to obtain optimized one or more kinematic chain parameters (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 11, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process comprises limiting acceleration of one or more elements within the kinematic chain of the kinematic structure (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 12, Lee further teaches wherein the optimization process comprises tracking of a last link of the kinematic chain of the kinematic structure (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 13, Lee further teaches wherein the tracking of the last link comprises penalizing a deviation from one or more of a desired last link velocity and a desired last link pose (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 14, Lee further teaches wherein the method utilizes quadratic programming to obtain, for the respective update interval, the one or more kinematic chain parameters (Figures 6 & 7; at least as in page 653-655, Section 5. Simulation (whole section)).
Regarding claim 15, Lee further teaches wherein the kinematic structure is a robotic device or a part thereof (abstract; at least as in pages 643-644, 1.Introduction Section and pages 653-655, 5 Simulation Section, wherein the kinematic structure is clearly a robotic device).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches an apparatus for controlling a kinematic structure (abstract, specifically wherein “the proposed method is effective for the real-time kinematic control of a redundant arm as well as the real-time generation of collision-free joint trajectories”), comprising:
interface circuitry configured to receive pose data indicating a desired pose for the kinematic structure (at least as in page 653, Section 5. Simulation, paragraph 2, wherein “For the simulation, the initial joint configuration and the final (desired) Cartesian end-effector position were given as inputs.”) and time data indicating an update interval used to control the kinematic structure (at least as in page 648, Section 3. Convergence Stability and Update Intervals, paragraph 1, wherein “the input vector update based on either eqns (23)-(26) or (31) is performed in discrete time by a computer. In this case, especially near singular points, is required for achieving convergence stability.”, i.e. the update interval is defined based on the discrete time needed by the controlling computer to update the input vector, e.g. the operating frequency of the computer or the bus frequency in case of remote sensors); and
processing circuitry configured to:
perform a constrained optimization process on inverse kinematics of the desired pose (at least as in page 654, paragraph 2, wherein “Collision-free path planning of a redundant arm can be done by searching for a path of minimal potentials under the constraints of arm kinematics as well as in compromise with other performance indices (e.g., for joint configuration optimization)”) in accordance with the time data to obtain for the respective update interval one or more kinematic chain parameters for a collision-free state of the kinematic structure (at least as in page 653, Section 5. Simulation, paragraph 2, wherein “For the simulation, the initial joint configuration and the final (desired) Cartesian end-effector position were given as inputs.” and further wherein “The first and second cases were intended for comparison of the proposed scheme based on the pseudoinverse of the gradient of Lyapunov function with the conventional schemes based on the pseudoinverse of Jacobian or the Jacobian transpose. For all cases, the update interval is selected based on eqns (60) and (61)…In practice, the update interval is determined by multiplying some constant factor to the result from eqn (61).”); and
generate control data for controlling the kinematic structure based on the one or more kinematic chain parameters (at least as in pages 654-655, Section 5. Simulation, wherein “Simulated joint configurations are generated based on eqns (23)-(26) with consideration of joint limits and obstacle avoidance.” and further as in page 658, Section 6. Conclusion, wherein “Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method is effective for real-time kinematic control of a redundant arm, as well as for real-time generation of collision-free joint trajectories”).
Regarding claim 17, Lee further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to run an inverse kinematics solver to output the one or more kinematic chain parameter for the respective update interval (abstract; at least as in pages 643-644, 1.Introduction Section and pages 653-655, 5 Simulation Section, wherein the inverse kinematic(s) solved by computer means, which can be construed as inverse kinematics solver).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches a system, comprising:
an apparatus according to claim 16 (as provided in claim 16 above); and
a robotic device configured to operate based on the control data (abstract; at least as in pages 643-644, 1.Introduction Section and pages 653-655, 5 Simulation Section, wherein the kinematic structure is clearly a robotic device).
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon a program having a program code for performing the method according to claim 1, when the program is executed on a processor or a programmable hardware (abstract; at least as in pages 643-644, 1.Introduction Section and pages 653-655, 5 Simulation Section, wherein the inverse kinematic(s) solved by computer means, necessitating non-transitory machine-readable medium).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner notes the additional prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention, and also appear to read on several of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2024/0066698 A1, issued to Campos Macias, which is directed towards robot movement planning, and in particular, to systems, devices, and methods that plan robotic movements, including robots that operate in complex environments where other humans may be in the vicinity of the robot and/or collaborating with the robot.
US 2022/0105627 A1, issued to Ebrahimi et al, which is directed towards a computer-implemented method for controlling a robot, the method comprising: determining a first value for a first joint parameter associated with a first continuum joint included in the robot and a first value for a second joint parameter associated with the first continuum joint, wherein the first joint parameter indicates a bending radius of a flexible portion of the continuum joint, and the second joint parameter indicates a rotation of the flexible portion of the continuum joint with respect to a base portion of the first continuum joint; and positioning an end portion of the robot at a final target location based on the first value of the first joint parameter and the first value of the second joint parameter.
US 5,737,500, issued to Seraji et al, which is directed towards a mobile dexterous robotic arm with real-time control system that optimizes a process control of said robotic arm and particularly for collision avoidance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights