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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2025, 02/16/2026, 05/18/2026 and 06/16/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 (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 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 1-2, 7, 9-12, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi (US 2017/0259433 A1) in view of Takenaka (US 2005/0104548 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takeuchi teaches a computer-implemented method that when executed by data processing hardware of a robot causes the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving a measured task parameter set for an end effector of the robot, the measured task parameter set representing positions of the end effector while manipulating an object [(see at least paragraphs 85-86) “The robot control device 30 calculates, on the basis of a position indicated by the control point position information designated by the position control and the calculated translational corrected movement amount, as a corrected position, a position translated from the position by the translational corrected movement amount. The robot control device 30 designates, as new control point position information, information indicating the calculated corrected position. The robot control device 30 calculates, on the basis of a posture indicated by the control point posture information designated by the position control and the calculated rotational corrected angle, as a corrected posture, a posture rotated from the posture by the rotational corrected angle. The robot control device 30 designates, as new control point posture information, information indicating the calculated corrected posture. Consequently, the robot control device 30 can match the position and the posture indicated by the control point position information and the control point posture information corrected by the force control and the position and the posture of the control point T1. In this way, the robot control device 30 can cause, through position control, the robot 20 to perform predetermined work by matching the control point T1 with the teaching points in order of designation of the teaching points by the command for moving the control point T1 among the commands included in the operation program. When the force (the translational force and the moment) is applied to the control point T1 while the robot 20 is performing predetermined work, the robot control device 30 can move the control point T1 to cancel the force.”] generating a task space model for the object based on the measured task parameter set, the task space model modelling the at least one axis of the object [(see at least Fig.7, paragraphs 211-216) As in 214 “the information processing device 40 causes, on the basis of the second information table, in which the second information stored, acquired from the robot control device 30, the display section 45 to display, in the graph display region GRF1, the second information and the first information associated with the second information. Consequently, the user can easily specify a command executed by the robot control device 30 in a section in which the robot 20 performs an unintended motion. The user can easily specify a processing command executed by the robot control device 30 in a section in which force control parameters should be adjusted in order to cause the robot 20 to efficiently perform the predetermined work. As a result, the user can select, on the basis of the first information and the second information, force control parameters suitable for causing the robot 20 to efficiently perform work. That is, the information processing device 40 can cause the user to select, on the basis of the first information and the second information, the force control parameters suitable for causing the robot 20 to efficiently perform work.” As in 215 “On the graph displayed in the graph display region GRF1, information indicating one or more degrees of freedom of the target output amounts used in generating the graph and checkboxes associated with the information are displayed. When displaying a graph in the graph display region GRF1, the display control section 461 displays, in the graph display region GRF1, information indicating one or more degrees of freedom of the target output amounts used in generating the graph and checkboxes associated with the information. When generating a graph displayed in the graph display region GRF1, the display control section 461 generates, on the basis of the second information stored in the target second information table used in generating the graph, for respective degrees of freedom of the target output amounts, graphs indicating temporal changes of the degrees of freedom.”]
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach an object having at least one constrained axis; and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the task space model.
However, Takenaka teaches an object having at least one constrained axis and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the task space model. [(see at least paragraphs 132-134) “Work 3) opening/closing a door 114 with a hinge 112, while grasping a knob 110 by the hand 40R, as shown in FIG. 10. In this case, motions other than rotation about a hinge axis 112Z are constrained. Defining the hinge axis as Z-axis, X-coordinate of the hand at that moment as 0 and Y-coordinate of the same as -r (r: the radius of rotation of the door 114, more specifically, the radius of rotation of the knob 110), the free velocity space is constituted by a set of hand velocity vectors (Vx, 0, 0, 0, 0, Vx/r) that have a given real number Vx.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeuchi to incorporate the teachings of Takenaka of an object having at least one constrained axis and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the task space model in order to ensure when a force is imparted to the object from the hand in its constraint direction, if only the constraint force to cancel out the force is generated at the object from an element other than the hand and if no friction is substantially generated in free directions, the motions of the hand and the object will not change. [(Takenaka 139)]
Regarding claim 2, In view of the above combination of references, Takeuchi further teaches wherein generating the task space model comprises decomposing the measured task parameter set, the task space model having a lower number of spatial dimensions than the measured task parameter set. [(see at least paragraphs 223-228) As in 224 “A graph PLT shown in FIG. 11 is shown as a two-dimensional graph in order to simplify the figure. Note that the display control section 461 may display a N-dimensional graph in the graph display region GRF1. N is an integer equal to or larger than 1. The vertical axis of the graph PLT indicates a position in the Y-axis direction in the robot coordinate system RC. The horizontal axis of the graph PLT indicates a position in the X-axis direction in the robot coordinate system RC. The graph PLT is a scatter diagram in which, when the robot control device 30 causes the robot 20 to perform the predetermined work a plurality of times, for the respective plurality of times of the predetermined work, information indicating success or failure of the predetermined work determined at timing when all the commands of the operation program are finished to be executed is plotted with respect to a position of the control point T1 at the timing. The position is a position in the robot coordinate system RC of the control point T1” As in 226 “X coordinates and Y coordinates in positions where crosses are plotted indicate positions in the robot coordinate system RC that the control point T1 finally reaches when the robot 20 fails in the predetermined work. On the other hand, in the graph PLT, X coordinates and Y coordinates in positions where circles are plotted indicate positions in the robot coordinate system RC that the control point T1 finally reaches when the robot 20 succeeds in the predetermined work. In the example shown in FIG. 11, it is seen from the graph PLT, the crosses and the circles tend to gather in regions different from each other in the robot coordinate system RC. Therefore, the user can improve possibility of the robot 20 succeeding in the predetermined work by adjusting force control parameters set in the robot control device 30 such that a position in the robot coordinate system RC that the control point T1 finally reaches is a position within the region where the circles gather.”]
Regarding claim 7, In view of the above combination of references, Takeuchi further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the measured task parameter set does not have sufficient data to generate the task space model; and limiting movement of the end effector using a user-defined setpoint in response to determining that the measured task parameter set does not have sufficient data to generate the task space model. [(see at least paragraphs 36-39) As in 39 “With this configuration, the control device causes the robot to perform, for the respective setting values, the number of which is determined in advance or input by the user, a predetermined first motion on the basis of the setting values. Consequently, the control device can cause the user to select a setting value corresponding to a time response waveform desired by the user out of the time response waveforms for the respective setting values, the number of which is determined in advance or input by the user.”]
Regarding claim 9, In view of the above combination of references, Takeuchi further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a first measured task parameter; determining a difference between the first measured task parameter and a second measured task parameter of the measured task parameter set; and adding the first measured task parameter to the measured task parameter set in response to the difference between the first measured task parameter and the second measured task parameter being greater than a threshold value. [(see at least paragraphs 262-265) As in 263 “The left side of Expression (1) described above is formed by a first term obtained by multiplying a second order differential value of the position S of the TCP with an imaginary inertia parameter m, a second term obtained by multiplying a first order differential value of the position S of the TCP with an imaginary viscosity parameter d, and a third term obtained by multiplying the position S of the TCP with an imaginary elasticity parameter k. The right side of Expression (1) described above is formed by a force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) obtained by subtracting the force f.sub.S from the target force f.sub.St. An argument t of the force deviation Δf.sub.S(t) represents time. The differential in Expression (1) described above means differential by the time. The target force f.sub.St may be set as a constant value in a process performed by the robot 26 or may be set as a value derived by a function dependent on the time” As in 265 “The robot control device 30 converts, on the basis of the correspondence relation U, corrected target positions (S.sub.t+ΔS) in the respective six directions (the X-axis direction, the Y-axis direction, the Z-axis direction, the direction of the rotation angle RX, the direction of the rotation angle RY, and the direction of the rotation angle RZ) in the robot coordinate system RC into target driving positions D.sub.t, which are target driving positions of the respective motors M1 to M6. The robot control device 30 subtracts present motor driving positions D.sub.a from the motor target driving positions D.sub.t for the respective six motors (the respective motors M1 to M6) to thereby calculate driving position deviations D.sub.e (=D.sub.t−D.sub.a). The robot control device 30 adds up values obtained by multiplying, with a speed control gain K.sub.V, driving speed deviations, which are differences between values obtained by multiplying the driving position deviations D.sub.e with a position control gain K.sub.p, and driving speed, which is a time differential value of the driving positions D.sub.a, and calculates control amounts D.sub.c. ”]
Regarding claim 10, In view of the above combination of references, Takeuchi further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: separating the measured task parameter set into a first measured task parameter set and a second measured task parameter set, the first measured task parameter set including more recent measured task parameters than the second measured task parameter set [(see at least paragraph 94) “The control amount information is information indicating control amounts with which the robot control device 30 controls the robot 20. The control amounts indicated by the control amount information respectively mean an amount designated by the robot control device 30 when operating the robot 20, an amount calculated by the robot control device 30 when operating the robot 20, an amount input to the robot control device 30 in advance, and time clocked by the robot control device 30. In this example, the control amounts are respectively the position and the posture of the designated teaching point, the corrected change amounts, the time, and the force control parameters. The position and the posture of the designated teaching point mean the position and the posture of a teaching point designated by the robot control device 30 through position control immediately before the control amount information is generated, that is, a position and a posture indicated by control point position information and control point posture information designated by the robot control device 30 through position control immediately before the control amount information is generated. The corrected change amounts mean corrected change amounts calculated by the robot control device 30 through force control immediately before the control amount information is generated.”]; determining a quality of fit of the first measured task parameter set with the second measured task parameter set; and determining that the end effector has disengaged with the object in response to the quality of fit exceeds a threshold value. [(see at least paragraph 99) “When a predetermined success condition is satisfied at timing when all the commands of the operation program are finished to be executed, the robot control device 30 determines that the predetermined work is successful. The success condition is a condition that a force (i.e., a translational force and a moment) included in the physical quantity information of the second information at the timing is within a predetermined range. On the other hand, when the predetermined success condition is not satisfied at the timing when all the commands of the operation program are finished to be executed, the robot control device 30 determines that the predetermined work has ended in failure. The robot control device 30 generates the success and failure information as a result of such determination. Note that the predetermined condition may be, instead of these conditions, other conditions such as acquisition of information indicating some error from another device and detection of some error by the own device. The errors are, for example, interference between the robot 20 and anther object and an unintended drop of an object gripped by the robot 20.”]
Regarding claim 11, Takeuchi teaches a robot, comprising: an articulated arm having an end effector configured to engage with an object [(see at least paragraph 67) “the end effector E is an end effector including finger sections capable of gripping an object. Note that the end effector E may be an end effector capable of lifting an object with the suction of the air, a magnetic force, a jig, or the like or another end effector instead of the end effector including the finger sections.”]; data processing hardware in communication with the articulated arm; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations comprising: receiving a measured task parameter set for the end effector, the measured task parameter set representing positions of the end effector while manipulating the object [(see at least paragraphs 85-86) “The robot control device 30 calculates, on the basis of a position indicated by the control point position information designated by the position control and the calculated translational corrected movement amount, as a corrected position, a position translated from the position by the translational corrected movement amount. The robot control device 30 designates, as new control point position information, information indicating the calculated corrected position. The robot control device 30 calculates, on the basis of a posture indicated by the control point posture information designated by the position control and the calculated rotational corrected angle, as a corrected posture, a posture rotated from the posture by the rotational corrected angle. The robot control device 30 designates, as new control point posture information, information indicating the calculated corrected posture. Consequently, the robot control device 30 can match the position and the posture indicated by the control point position information and the control point posture information corrected by the force control and the position and the posture of the control point T1. In this way, the robot control device 30 can cause, through position control, the robot 20 to perform predetermined work by matching the control point T1 with the teaching points in order of designation of the teaching points by the command for moving the control point T1 among the commands included in the operation program. When the force (the translational force and the moment) is applied to the control point T1 while the robot 20 is performing predetermined work, the robot control device 30 can move the control point T1 to cancel the force.”]; generating a task space model for the object based on the measured task parameter set, the task space model modelling the at least one axis of the object [(see at least Fig.7, paragraphs 211-216) As in 214 “the information processing device 40 causes, on the basis of the second information table, in which the second information stored, acquired from the robot control device 30, the display section 45 to display, in the graph display region GRF1, the second information and the first information associated with the second information. Consequently, the user can easily specify a command executed by the robot control device 30 in a section in which the robot 20 performs an unintended motion. The user can easily specify a processing command executed by the robot control device 30 in a section in which force control parameters should be adjusted in order to cause the robot 20 to efficiently perform the predetermined work. As a result, the user can select, on the basis of the first information and the second information, force control parameters suitable for causing the robot 20 to efficiently perform work. That is, the information processing device 40 can cause the user to select, on the basis of the first information and the second information, the force control parameters suitable for causing the robot 20 to efficiently perform work.” As in 215 “On the graph displayed in the graph display region GRF1, information indicating one or more degrees of freedom of the target output amounts used in generating the graph and checkboxes associated with the information are displayed. When displaying a graph in the graph display region GRF1, the display control section 461 displays, in the graph display region GRF1, information indicating one or more degrees of freedom of the target output amounts used in generating the graph and checkboxes associated with the information. When generating a graph displayed in the graph display region GRF1, the display control section 461 generates, on the basis of the second information stored in the target second information table used in generating the graph, for respective degrees of freedom of the target output amounts, graphs indicating temporal changes of the degrees of freedom.”]; and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the task space model.
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach an object having at least one constrained axis; and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the task space model.
However, Takenaka teaches an object having at least one constrained axis and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the task space model. [(see at least paragraphs 132-134) “Work 3) opening/closing a door 114 with a hinge 112, while grasping a knob 110 by the hand 40R, as shown in FIG. 10. In this case, motions other than rotation about a hinge axis 112Z are constrained. Defining the hinge axis as Z-axis, X-coordinate of the hand at that moment as 0 and Y-coordinate of the same as -r (r: the radius of rotation of the door 114, more specifically, the radius of rotation of the knob 110), the free velocity space is constituted by a set of hand velocity vectors (Vx, 0, 0, 0, 0, Vx/r) that have a given real number Vx.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Takeuchi to incorporate the teachings of Takenaka of an object having at least one constrained axis and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the task space model in order to ensure when a force is imparted to the object from the hand in its constraint direction, if only the constraint force to cancel out the force is generated at the object from an element other than the hand and if no friction is substantially generated in free directions, the motions of the hand and the object will not change. [(Takenaka 139)]
Regarding claim 12, This claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, This claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, This claim recites analogous limitations to claim 9 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, This claim recites analogous limitations to claim 10 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Takenaka and in further view of Peternel (A Human–Robot Co-Manipulation Approach Based on Human Sensorimotor Information (Year: 2017)).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Takeuchi has all of the elements of claim 2 as discussed above.
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach wherein decomposing the measured task parameter set comprises using singular value decomposition (SVD) to determine an axis or a plane of freedom associated with the measured task parameter set.
However, Peternel teaches wherein decomposing the measured task parameter set comprises using singular value decomposition (SVD) to determine an axis or a plane of freedom associated with the measured task parameter set. [(see at least page 814-section C) “The endpoint force manipulability ellipsoid can be determined by eigenvalues and eigenvectors of (Jh JT h)−1.Weused eigenvectors to determine the orientation of the task frame in a way that the dominant axis of the force manipulability ellipsoid was aligned with the sawing axis. We selected the sawing axis to be x-axis of the task frame. To adjust the Cartesian stiffness behaviour to the estimated task frame, we adjusted the stiffness matrix Kadj in the robot base frame by Kadj =|UR·Keig ·VT R|, (16) where Keig is a diagonal matrix containing eigenvalues of stiffness matrix K. Matrices UR and VR contain left and right singular vectors of (Jh JT h)−1 and were obtained by singular value decomposition. In addition to adjusting the stiffness matrix, we also controlled the orientation of the robotic hand to correspond to the adjusted task frame. With this, we achieved a more natural operation as that the robotic hand orientation better matched the current orientation of the human hand.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Takeuchi to incorporate the teachings of Peternel of decomposing the measured task parameter set comprises using singular value decomposition (SVD) to determine an axis or a plane of freedom associated with the measured task parameter set in order to achieve a more natural operation with the robotic arm. [(Peternel Pg.814-section C)]
Regarding claim 13, This claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Takenaka and in further view of Jaekel (US 2017/0190052 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Takeuchi has all of the elements of claim 1 as discussed above.
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: decomposing the task space model into a task path model representing an estimated task direction, the task path model including a lower number of spatial dimensions than the task space model, wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object is further based on the task path model.
However, Jaekel teaches wherein the operations further comprise: decomposing the task space model into a task path model representing an estimated task direction, the task path model including a lower number of spatial dimensions than the task space model, wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object is further based on the task path model. [(see at least paragraphs 52-57) As in 55 “Machine learning methods are implemented in the learning module of a motion template. These machine learning methods calculate the parameters of the execution modules from the recorded configurations, which may include the robot arm position and/or gripper position and/or the force/torque measurements and/or points on a CAD model.” As in 56 “Based on the parameters, a motion path can be calculated for each execution module of the motion template, preferably using path planning algorithms, for example, the rapidly exploring random tree algorithm. This step is analogous to the teach-in method, in which a continuous path, for example, a linear connection between two waypoints, is generated on the basis of waypoints subject to the selection of types of interpolation. In the present case, continuous paths are generated, based on constraints, in particular, runtime and goal constraints, using planning algorithms.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Takeuchi to incorporate the teachings of Jaekel of decomposing the task space model into a task path model representing an estimated task direction, the task path model including a lower number of spatial dimensions than the task space model, wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object is further based on the task path model in order to produce a calculated motion path as well as the runtime and goal constraints. [(Jaekel 57)]
Regarding claim 5, Modified Takeuchi has all of the elements of claim 4 as discussed above.
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: determining a difference between the task path model and a previous iteration of the task path model; and in response to the difference between the task path model and the previous iteration of the task path model being greater than a threshold value, discarding the task path model and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the previous iteration of the task path model.
However, Jaekel teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining a difference between the task path model and a previous iteration of the task path model; and in response to the difference between the task path model and the previous iteration of the task path model being greater than a threshold value, discarding the task path model and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the previous iteration of the task path model. [(see at least paragraphs 206-263) As in 260 “ In contrast to approaches that take into account variations during the execution of the motion paths by defining the movement corridors, the inventive method and the inventive system respectively can take into account that not only are there variations in the motion path, but that a variety of different variations, which occur, for example, due to the temporal change in the gripper positions and/or the measured forces and in various process steps, must also be taken into consideration.” As in 262 “In an advantageous manner the parameters of the execution module(s) may include constraints, where in this case the robot movement or a partial movement of the robot movement is planned and/or executed on the basis of the constraints. Thus, the result is a variable and dynamic planning of a robot movement or a partial movement of the robot movement, so that it is possible to implement an execution of the robot movement that is as robust and flexible as possible, in particular, with respect to any variances in the movement.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Takeuchi to further incorporate the teachings of Jaekel of determining a difference between the task path model and a previous iteration of the task path model; and in response to the difference between the task path model and the previous iteration of the task path model being greater than a threshold value, discarding the task path model and limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object based on the previous iteration of the task path model in order to allow the path and the movement of the robot to be planned in an efficient way. [(Jaekel 263)]
Regarding claim 6, Modified Takeuchi has all of the elements of claim 4 as discussed above.
Takeuchi does not explicitly teach wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object comprises instructing the end effector to move along a tangent of the task path model.
However, Takenaka teaches wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object comprises instructing the end effector to move along a tangent of the task path model. [(see at least Fig.10, paragraphs 131-133) “Work 3 opening/closing a door 114 with a hinge 112, while grasping a knob 110 by the hand 40R, as shown in FIG. 10. In this case, motions other than rotation about a hinge axis 112Z are constrained. Defining the hinge axis as Z-axis, X-coordinate of the hand at that moment as 0 and Y-coordinate of the same as -r (r: the radius of rotation of the door 114, more specifically, the radius of rotation of the knob 110), the free velocity space is constituted by a set of hand velocity vectors (Vx, 0, 0, 0, 0, Vx/r) that have a given real number Vx”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of modified Takeuchi to further incorporate the teachings of Takenaka of limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object comprises instructing the end effector to move along a tangent of the task path model in order for the dynamic balance to be maintained or an inclined posture of the robot to be restored without giving an influence on the motion of the object, by controlling the constraint direction components of force that acts on the hand from the object. [(Takenaka 141)]
Regarding claim 14, This claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, This claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 16, This claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 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.
The instant invention is directed towards a computer-implemented method that when executed by data processing hardware of a robot causes the data processing hardware to perform operations. The instant invention differs from the prior art in that the method includes “wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object comprises:assigning a first impedance value to the end effector along at least one axis of freedom of the object and assigning a second impedance value to the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object, the second impedance value indicating a greater amount of impedance than the first impedance value,wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object is further based on the first impedance value and the second impedance value.”. Prior art Takeuchi discloses a robot control device that controls a robot. The robot control device outputs, to another device, second information associated with first information indicating operation being executed by the robot control section, the operation being operation for causing the robot to perform work. The control amount information is information indicating control amounts with which the robot control device controls the robot. The control amounts indicated by the control amount information respectively mean an amount designated by the robot control device when operating the robot, an amount calculated by the robot control device when operating the robot, an amount input to the robot control device in advance, and time clocked by the robot control device. In this example, the control amounts are respectively the position and the posture of the designated teaching point, the corrected change amounts, the time, and the force control parameters. Prior art Chung (Door-opening Control of a Service Robot Using the Multifingered Robot Hand, Oct.2009- cited in attached 892) teaches an end-effector/robot arm that interacts with an object on a constrained axis, the references fail to disclose and teach all of the features AND a suitable motivation to combine and add these missing features, specifically “wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object comprises:assigning a first impedance value to the end effector along at least one axis of freedom of the object and assigning a second impedance value to the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object, the second impedance value indicating a greater amount of impedance than the first impedance value,wherein limiting movement of the end effector along the at least one constrained axis of the object is further based on the first impedance value and the second impedance value.”. Therefore, when combined together with the other limitations provide a more efficient and novel computer-implemented method that when executed by data processing hardware of a robot causes the data processing hardware to perform operations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US 2021/0031368 A1) Drumwright - ROBOTIC SYSTEM FOR PICKING AND PLACING OBJECTS FROM AND INTO A CONSTRAINED SPACE
(US 2011/0202068 A1) Diolaiti - MEDICAL ROBOTIC SYSTEM PROVIDING SENSORY FEEDBACK INDICATING A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COMMANDED STATE AND A PREFERRED POSE OF AN ARTICULATED INSTRUMENT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA whose telephone number is (571)272-3219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00 with flex.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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.
/MOHAMMED YOUSEF ABUELHAWA/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights