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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally filed on 07/08/2025, and are a continuation of 17/157,693, which was filed on 01/25/2021, and 18/329,824, which was filed on 06/06/2023. The claims also claim benefit to provisional application 62/965,328, which was filed on 01/24/2020.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, and 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 6, “the at least one input source” should be “the at least one other input source”.
For claim 11, “a robotic system” in the second to last line should be “the robotic system”.
For claim 15, “a force control output” should be “the force control output” and “a position control output” should be “the position control output”.
For Claim 16, claim 16 states “and comparing the actual position and the desired position using a combination of control laws, wherein the combination of control laws includes a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller, a feedforward controller, and a deadband controller.”. The combination of control laws that include a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller, a feedforward controller, and a deadband controller have already been introduced in the claim. Applicant should amend the claim so that the claim reads “and comparing the actual position and the desired position using the combination of control laws.”.
For claim 17, claim 17 states “a plurality of control law a parameters”. Applicant should remove the “a” so that the claim reads “a plurality of control law parameters”.
For claim 18, “the object” should be “the at least one object”.
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 9-10, and 20 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.
For claim 9, the term “the combination of control laws” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what control laws Applicant is referring to.
For claim 10, the term “the plurality of control law parameters” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what control law parameters Applicant is referring to.
For claim 20, the terms “the at least one force sensor” and “the at least one position sensor” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear what force sensor and position sensor Applicant is referring to.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiso et al (US 20150105907 A1) in view of Hasegawa (US 20180225113 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Aiso and Hasegawa respectively)
Regarding Claim 1 and 11, Aiso teaches a system (See at least Aiso Paragraph 0054 and Figure 1, the robot system is interpreted as a system) comprising:
a method of moving at least one object with a robotic system (See at least Aiso Paragraph 0020, the movable unit is interpreted as the object) comprising:
at least one object configured to be moved by a robotic system (See at least Aiso Paragraph 0060 and Figure 1, the movable unit/manipulator is interpreted as at least one object);
a controller configured to instruct the robotic system to move the at least one object on a trajectory (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0054-0056, 0060, 0070, 0074, and 0078, the robot controller is interpreted as a controller, which moves the object/movable unit on a trajectory), the controller comprising:
a non-transitory memory storing executable instructions (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0108-0109, the controller includes a main storage device and an auxiliary storage device with programs, which is interpreted as a non-transitory memory with executable instructions); and
a processor for executing the instructions (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0108-0109, the controller includes a processor for executing the programs) to:
receive, from at least one force sensor, actual forces associated with the at least one object (See at least Aiso Paragraph 0058, the output of the force sensor is sent to the controller);
receive, from at least one position sensor, an actual position associated with the at least one object (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0071-0073 and Figure 2, the robot controller receives images from the imaging devices and determines the position of the end point; See at least Aiso Paragraph 0069, the encoders are also used to determine the current position of the end point);
retrieve desired forces to be associated with the at least one object (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0075 and 0085, the impedance control is performed as the force control, and the target impedance is interpreted as the desired force) and a desired position to be associated with the at least one object (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0073-0074, the target position and target angles are interpreted as a desired position), and a trajectory of the at least one object (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0070, 0074, and 0078, the trajectory for the object/movable unit is determined/retrieved);
and the desired position and the actual position are in a second coordinate system (See at least Aiso Paragraph 0084, the current image, which has the actual/current position, and the target/desired position are represented in the same coordinate system on the image);
transform the …actual position, …and the desired position from the…second coordinate system to a common reference frame (See at least Aiso Paragraph 0084 and Figure 3, the current/actual position and target/desired position are transformed from the image coordinate system to the robot coordinate system, which is interpreted as the common reference frame);
determine a hybrid weighting value based on an amount of position control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at a future time and an amount of force control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at the future time (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0084-0086 and Figure 3, the ratio for the combination of visual servoing and force control is interpreted as the hybrid weighting value);
determine a change in position associated with the at least one object and a change in forces associated with the at least one object based on the hybrid weighting value, a force control output, and a position control output (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 9, the end point is moved according to the ratios in s4, and an image is acquired to determine the current position, which is interpreted as determining a change in position, and the force sensor determines the current force, which is interpreted as determining the change in force );
modify the trajectory of the at least one object based on the change in position and the change in forces associated with the at least one object (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 9, when the condition for ending visual servoing and ending force control is not fulfilled, the process returns to s2 and command values for the trajectory of the end point is determined again, which is interpreted as modifying the trajectory); and
move the at least one object based on the modified trajectory (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 9, when the condition for ending visual servoing and ending force control is not fulfilled, the process returns to s2 and command values for the trajectory of the end point is determined again, and the end point is moved again according to the command values, which is interpreted as moving the at least one object based on the modified trajectory).
Aiso fails to explicitly disclose receive, from at least one other input source, a measurement of at least one other parameter of the system;
the desired forces and the actual forces are in a first coordinate system, and
transform the actual forces and the desired forces from the first coordinate system to the common reference frame.
However, Hasegawa teaches receive, from at least one other input source, a measurement of at least one other parameter of the system (See at least Hasegawa Paragraph 0286, the acceleration sensor is interpreted as one other input source, which measures the acceleration of the robot);
the desired forces and the actual forces are in a first coordinate system (See at least Hasegawa Paragraph 0047, the target/desired force and acting/actual force are expressed in a force control coordinate system), and
transform the actual forces and the desired forces from the first coordinate system to the common reference frame (See at least Hasegawa Paragraphs 0047-0048, and 0076, the target/desired force and acting/actual force are expressed in a force control coordinate system, which is then transformed into a robot coordinate system/common reference frame).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in Aiso with Hasegawa to transform the actual forces and the desired forces from the first coordinate system to the common reference frame. Coordinate transformation, as taught by Hasegawa, is well-known and routine in the art, and allows for values, such as the actual force and desired force, to be converted from one coordinate system into another coordinate system (See at least Hasegawa Paragraphs 0047-0048, and 0076). This would allow the desired force, desired position, actual force, and actual position to all be represented in the same coordinate system.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, modified Aiso teaches the at least one object is at least one of a tool within the robotic system and a base within the robotic system (See at least Aiso Paragraph 0060 and Figure 1, the movable unit/manipulator is interpreted as a tool within the robotic system).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, modified Aiso teaches the at least one object is a rigid body or a deformable body (See at least Aiso Paragraph 0060 and Figure 1, the movable unit/manipulator is interpreted as a rigid body).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Aiso teaches the at least one force sensor configured to be positioned on the at least one object to measure the actual forces associated with the at least one object (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0057-0058 and Figure 1, the force sensor is on the wrist part, which is part of the movable unit).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Aiso teaches the at least one position sensor configured to be positioned on the at least one object to measure the actual position associated with the at least one object (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0066 and 0071, the imaging device is interpreted as the position sensor and is positioned on distal end of the arm, which is part of the movable unit; See at least Aiso Paragraph 0069, the encoders are interpreted as position sensors as well).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Aiso fails to disclose the at least one input source configured to measure, calculate, or receive the measurement of at least one other parameter of the system.
However, Hasegawa teaches the at least one input source configured to measure, calculate, or receive the measurement of at least one other parameter of the system (See at least Hasegawa Paragraph 0286, the acceleration sensor/input source measures the acceleration of the robot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Aiso with Hasegawa to measure at least one other parameter of the system. This modification, as taught by Hasegawa, would allow the system to measure the acceleration of the robot (See at least Hasegawa Paragraph 0286), thus, improving the awareness of the system.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Aiso teaches the determining the hybrid weighting value further comprises a user or a control loop inputting the amount of position control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at a future time and the amount of force control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at the future time into the controller (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0011 and 0091, the user inputs the ratios of control).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Aiso teaches querying the at least one force sensor and the at least one position sensor at a sampling frequency (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0128-0133, the impedance control controls the position and movement based on the information from the force sensors, and the visual servoing controls the position and movement based on the images from the imaging devices; See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0142-0150 and Figure 12, the processing of the sensor information is done at intervals, which is interpreted as a sampling frequency); and
modifying the trajectory at the sampling frequency (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0142-0150 and Figure 12, the commands are generated for the impedance control and visual servoing control after processing the information).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiso in view of Hasegawa, and in further view of Seraji (US 4860215 A) (Hereinafter referred to Seraji)
Regarding Claim 8, modified Aiso fails to disclose wherein each of the force control output and the position control output are determined using a combination of control laws comprising a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller, a feedforward controller, and/or a deadband controller,
wherein each of the force control output and the position control output are based on outputs of the combination of control laws.
However, Seraji teaches wherein each of the force control output and the position control output are determined using a combination of control laws comprising a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller, a feedforward controller, and/or a deadband controller (See at least Seraji Abstract and Column 6 line 55- Column 7 line 18, the adaptive feedback controller, which is interpreted as the PID controller, and the feedforward controller are used to control the force and position),
wherein each of the force control output and the position control output are based on outputs of the combination of control laws (See at least Seraji Abstract and Column 6 line 55- Column 7 line 18, the adaptive feedback controller, which is interpreted as the PID controller, and the feedforward controller are used to control the force and position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Aiso with Seraji to use a combination of control laws to output a force control output and a position control output. Having a PID controller ensure the joints follow trajectories and the feedback controller achieves robust tracking in real time (See at least Seraji Abstract). By using the combination of the non- linearized PID controller a feedforward controller, as taught by Seraji, the system can compensate for dynamic cross- couplings that exist between the force and position control (See at least Seraji Column 3 lines 8-13).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiso in view of Hasegawa and Seraji, and in further view of Kimura et al (US 20220004160 A1) (Hereinafter referred to Kimura)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Aiso fails to disclose as the at least one object is moved along the trajectory, the plurality of control law parameters are varied by interpolating between way points defined in the trajectory.
However, Kimura discloses as the at least one object is moved along the trajectory, the plurality of control law parameters are varied by interpolating between way points defined in the trajectory (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0046, 0093-0094 and Figure 5, the combination of a PID control and feedforward control are used to control the position, and parameters are interpolated between target distances, which are interpreted as waypoints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Aiso with Kimura to interpolate the parameters between way points. This modification, as taught by Kimura, would allow the system to determine the parameters between waypoints (See at least Kimura Paragraph 0094), which would allow the system to accurately control the parameters in between points along the trajectory.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiso in view of Hasegawa, and in further view of Seraji and Wilson (US 10406685 B1) (Hereinafter referred to Wilson)
Regarding Claim 16, modified Aiso teaches comparing the actual forces and the desired forces (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0085 and Figure 3, the force control unit generates a second trajectory so that the sensor values/actual forces may be the target impedance/desired forces, which is interpreted as comparing the actual forces and the desired forces)…and
comparing the actual position and the desired position (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0084 and Figure 3, the visual servoing unit generates a first trajectory to bring the current position closer to the target position, which is interpreted as comparing the actual position and desired position).
Modified Aiso fails to disclose comparing the forces… using a combination of control laws, wherein the combination of control laws includes a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller, a feedforward controller, and
comparing the positions…using a combination of control laws, wherein the combination of control laws includes a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller, a feedforward controller.
However, Seraji teaches comparing the forces using a combination of control laws, wherein the combination of control laws includes a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller, a feedforward controller (See at least Seraji Abstract, Column 5 lines 25-47, and Column 6 line 55- Column 7 line 18, the adaptive feedback controller, which is interpreted as the PID controller, and the feedforward controller are used to perform force control based on the difference between the desired and actual forces), and
comparing the positions…using a combination of control laws, wherein the combination of control laws includes a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller, a feedforward controller (See at least Seraji Abstract, Column 5 lines 25-47, and Column 12 line 41- Column 13 line 25, the adaptive feedback controller, which is interpreted as the PID controller, and the feedforward controller are used to perform position control based on the difference between the desired and actual position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Aiso with Seraji to use a combination of control laws to compare the forces and positions. Having a PID controller ensure the joints follow trajectories and the feedback controller achieves robust tracking in real time (See at least Seraji Abstract). By using the combination of the non-linearized PID controller a feedforward controller, the system can compensate for dynamic cross-couplings that exist between the force and position control (See at least Seraji Column 3 lines 8-13).
Even though Seraji teaches comparing the forces and position using a partially non-linear proportional-integral-derivative controller and a feedforward controller, modified Aiso fails to disclose using a deadband controller.
However, Wilson teaches using a deadband controller in combination with a PID controller for force and position control (See at least Wilson Column 1 line 64-Column 2 line 10, Column 9 lines 32-48, and Column 10 lines 4-24, the PID controller works in combination with a deadband component/controller).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Aiso with Wilson to use a deadband controller. By using a deadband controller, as taught by Wilson, positional errors indicative of offsets of the end effector from desired grasp positions of the end effector may be ignored or reduced when the end effector is operated within the aforementioned position deadband and grasp force errors indicative of offsets between grasp force provided by the end effector and desired grasp forces may be ignored or reduced when the end effector is operated within the aforementioned grasp force deadband (See at least Wilson Column 2 lines 11-43), thus, improving the accuracy of the position and force control.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Aiso fails to disclose the control laws have a plurality of control law a parameters that are varied in time as the at least one object is moved.
However, Seraji teaches the control laws have a plurality of control law a parameters that are varied in time as the at least one object is moved (See at least Seraji Column 6 line 55- Column 7 line 18, Column 12 lines 30-40, and Column 18 lines 7-22, the control law parameters have variation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Aiso with Seraji to have the control laws have parameters that vary as the object is moved. This modification, as taught by Seraji, would allow the controllers to compensate for dynamic cross-couplings that exist between position and force control loops and generate real-time signals which vary and compensate for system non-linearities in order to achieve a desired position/force response (See at least Seraji Column 2 line 65-Column 3 line 16), thus, improving the accuracy of the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiso in view of Hasegawa, Seraji, and Wilson and in further view of Kimura
Regarding Claim 18, modified Aiso fails to disclose as the object is moved along the trajectory, the plurality of control law parameters are varied in time by interpolating between way points defined in the trajectory.
However, Kimura discloses as the object is moved along the trajectory, the plurality of control law parameters are varied in time by interpolating between way points defined in the trajectory (See at least Kimura Paragraphs 0046, 0093-0094 and Figure 5, the combination of a PID control and feedforward control are used to control the position, and parameters are interpolated between target distances, which are interpreted as waypoints).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Aiso with Kimura to interpolate the parameters between way points. This modification, as taught by Kimura, would allow the system to determine the parameters between waypoints (See at least Kimura Paragraph 0094), which would allow the system to accurately control the parameters in between points along the trajectory.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiso in view of Hasegawa, Seraji, and Wilson and in further view of Yip et al (US 20170312920 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Yip)
Regarding Claim 19, modified Aiso discloses at least one actuator moves a component associated with the at least one object based on…an actuator force control output, and an actuator position control output (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0069, 0129, and 0133, the actuators are controlled to move the end point to the target position using the force control output from the impedance control unit, and position control output from the visual servoing control unit).
Modified Aiso fails to disclose the actuator moves the object based on another hybrid weighting value.
However, Yip teaches this limitation (See at least Yip Paragraphs 0048-0052 and claim 8, the control commands are determined based on the weighting for the normalized actuator displacement values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings disclosed in modified Aiso with Yip to move the at least one object based on another hybrid weighting value. Yip teaches the actuator signals can be normalized by using the weighting matrix, which makes the signals dimensionless, such that when solving for the actuator displacement, the desired displacements are not affected or biased by units of measurements (See at least Yip Paragraphs 0050-0052). This would increase the accuracy of the system and make the system less prone to error.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538 in view of Aiso
Claim 1 of the current Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538
A system comprising: at least one object configured to be moved by a robotic system;
A system comprising: at least one object configured to be moved by a robotic system;
at least one force sensor configured to be positioned on the at least one object to measure actual forces associated with the at least one object; at least one position sensor configured to be positioned on the at least one object to measure an actual position associated with the at least one object; at least one input source configured to measure, calculate, or receive a measurement of at least one other parameter of the system;
a controller configured to instruct the robotic system to move the at least one object on a trajectory,
the controller comprising: a non-transitory memory storing executable instructions; and a processor for executing the instructions to:
and a controller comprising: a non-transitory memory storing executable instructions; and a processor for executing the instructions to:
receive, from at least one force sensor, actual forces associated with the at least one object;
receive, from the at least one force sensor, the actual forces associated with the at least one object;
receive, from at least one position sensor, an actual position associated with the at least one object;
receive, from the at least one position sensor, the actual position associated with the at least one object;
receive, from at least one other input source, a measurement of at least one other parameter of the system;
receive, from the at least one input source, the measurement of the at least one other parameter of the system;
retrieve desired forces to be associated with the at least one object and a desired position to be associated with the at least one object, wherein the desired forces and the actual forces are in a first coordinate system and the desired position and the actual position are in a second coordinate system;
retrieve desired forces to be associated with the at least one object, wherein the desired forces and the actual forces are each within a first coordinate system; retrieve a desired position to be associated with the at least one object, wherein the desired position and the actual position are each within a second coordinate system;
retrieve a trajectory of the at least one object based on the desired forces and the desired position;
establish a common reference frame for the actual forces, the actual position, the desired forces, and the desired position;
transform the actual forces, the actual position, the desired forces, and the desired position from the respective first coordinate system and second coordinate system to a common reference frame;
transform the actual forces, the actual position, the desired forces, and the desired position from the respective first coordinate system and second coordinate system to the common reference frame;
determine at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter based on the measurement of the at least one other parameter of the system; determine a force control output based on the difference between the actual force and the desired force and the at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter; determine a position control output based on the difference between the actual position and the desired position and the at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter;
determine a hybrid weighting value based on an amount of position control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at a future time and an amount of force control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at the future time;
determine a hybrid weighting value based on an amount of position control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at a future time and an amount of force control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at the future time,
wherein the hybrid weighting value is variable in time based on at least one control variable;
determine a change in position associated with the at least one object and a change in forces associated with the at least one object based on the hybrid weighting value, a force control output, and a position control output;
determine a change in position associated with the at least one object and a change in forces associated with the at least one object based on the hybrid weighting value, the force control output, and the position control output;
modify the trajectory of the at least one object based on the change in position and the change in forces associated with the at least one object;
modify the trajectory of the at least one object based on the change in position and the change in forces associated with the at least one object;
and move the at least one object based on the modified trajectory.
and move the at least one object based on the modified trajectory.
As shown in the table above, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538 includes every limitation of claim 1 of the current application except for “a controller configured to instruct the robotic system to move the at least one object on a trajectory”. However, this limitation is taught by Aiso (See at least Aiso Paragraphs 0054-0056, 0060, 0070, 0074, and 0078, the robot controller is interpreted as a controller, which moves the object/movable unit on a trajectory). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the current application with Aiso to have the controller instruct the robotic system to move the at least one object on a trajectory. This modification, as taught by Aiso, would allow the controller to actually move the at least one object along the trajectory. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under double patenting.
Claim 2 of the current application is rejected over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 3 of the current application is rejected over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 4 of the current application is rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538. Claim 4 recites “the at least one force sensor configured to be positioned on the at least one object to measure the actual forces associated with the at least one object.”. This limitation is included in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 5 of the current application is rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538. Claim 5 recites “the at least one position sensor configured to be positioned on the at least one object to measure the actual position associated with the at least one object.”. This limitation is included in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538
Claim 6 of the current application is rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538. Claim 6 recites “the at least one input source configured to measure, calculate, or receive the measurement of at least one other parameter of the system.”. This limitation is included in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538
Claim 7 of the current application is rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538. Claim 7 recites “determine at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter based on the measurement of the at least one other parameter of the system; determine the force control output based on the difference between the actual force and the desired force and the at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter; and determine the position control output based on the difference between the actual position and the desired position and the at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter.”. These limitations are included in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538
Claim 8 of the current application is rejected over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 9 of the current application is rejected over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 10 of the current application is rejected over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claims 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-13, and 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12377538 includes every limitation of claims 11-20 of the current application.
Claim 11 of the current Application
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538
A method of moving at least one object with a robotic system comprising:
A method of moving at least one object comprising:
receiving, by a controller comprising a processor, actual forces associated with the at least one object in a first coordinate system, an actual position associated with the at least one object in a second coordinate system, and a measurement of at least one other parameter related to the at least one object or the robotic system from at least one other input source;
receiving, by a controller comprising a processor, actual forces associated with the at least one object in a first coordinate system, the actual forces being measured by at least one force sensor positioned on the at least one object; receiving, by the controller, an actual position associated with the at least one object in a second coordinate system, the actual position being measured by at least one position sensor positioned on the at least one object; receiving, by the controller, a measurement of the at least one other parameter of the system from at least one input source,
wherein the input source receives a manual input of, calculates, or measures the measurement of the at least one other parameter of the system;
retrieving, by the controller, desired forces to be associated with the at least one object in the first coordinate system, a desired position to be associated with the at least one object in the second coordinate system, and a trajectory of the at least one object;
retrieving, by the controller, desired forces to be associated with the at least one object, wherein the desired forces are input into the system in the first coordinate system; retrieving, by the controller, a desired position to be associated with the at least one object, wherein the desired position is input into the system in the second coordinate system; retrieving, by the controller, a trajectory of the at least one object based on the desired forces and the desired position;
establishing, by the controller, a common reference frame for the actual forces, the actual position, the desired forces, and the desired position;
transforming, by the controller, the actual forces, the actual position, the desired forces, and the desired position from the respective first coordinate system and second coordinate system to a common reference frame;
transforming, by the controller, the actual forces, the actual position, the desired forces, and the desired position from the respective first coordinate system and second coordinate system to the common reference frame;
determining, by the controller, at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter based on the measurement of the at least one other parameter of the system; determining, by the controller, a force control output based on the difference between the actual force and the desired force and the at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter; determining, by the controller, a position control output based on the difference between the actual position and the desired position and the at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter;
determining, by the controller, a hybrid weighting value based on an amount of position control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at a future time and an amount of force control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at the future time;
determining, by the controller, a hybrid weighting value based on an amount of position control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at a future time and an amount of force control required for the at least one object to reach the desired position at the desired forces at the future time,
wherein the hybrid weighting value is variable in time based on at least one control variable;
determining, by the controller, a change in position and a change in forces associated with the at least one object based on the hybrid weighting value, a force control output, and a position control output;
determining, by the controller, a change in position and a change in forces associated with the at least one object based on the hybrid weighting value, the force control output, and the position control output;
modifying, by the controller, the trajectory of the at least one object based on the change in position and the change in forces associated with the at least one object;
modifying, by the controller, the trajectory of the at least one object based on the change in position and the change in forces associated with the at least one object;
and moving, by a robotic system associated with the controller, the at least one object based on the modified trajectory.
and moving, by a robotic system associated with the controller, the at least one object based on the modified trajectory.
As shown above, every limitation of claim 11 of the current application is taught by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected over double patenting.
Claim 12 of the current application is rejected over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 13 of the current application is rejected over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 14 of the current application is rejected over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 15 of the current application is rejected over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538. Claim 15 recites “determining, by the controller, at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter based on the measurement of the at least one other parameter of the system; determining, by the controller, a force control output based on the difference between the actual force and the desired force and the at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter; and determining, by the controller, a position control output based on the difference between the actual position and the desired position and the at least one adaptive compensation adjustment parameter.”. This limitation is included in claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538
Claim 16 of the current application is rejected over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 17 of the current application is rejected over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 18 of the current application is rejected over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 19 of the current application is rejected over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Claim 20 of the current application is rejected over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12377538.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okazaki (US 20110218676 A1) teaches hybrid position and force control for a robot
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESVINDER SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9 am-5 pm est.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at 571-270-3976. 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.
/ESVINDER SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights