Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“measurement system... for determining”
“inertial measurement system... for measuring” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In the instant case, the terms are being interpreted as disclosed in the instant specification ¶0068 and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims refer to “The system of claim 14”, whereas claim 14 is a method claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghili (US 2005/0230557).
Regarding claim 1:
Aghili teaches a system for emulation of a dynamic system in a selected gravity environment, the system comprising:
a robotic manipulator (manipulator 102, see Fig. 1) configured to track a reference trajectory (desired trajectory, see at least ¶0015-17);
a position and orientation measurement and control system (POMCS) payload attached to a tip of the robotic manipulator, the POMCS payload configured to output control forces and torques (spacecraft 103, See Fig. 1 ¶0018, 0020, ¶0046);
a measurement system on the robotic manipulator for determining forces and moments exchanged between the tip and the POMCS payload in response to the output control forces and torques (emulation system including force/moment sensor 106, see at least ¶0040),
an inertial measurement system on the robotic manipulator for measuring accelerations and velocities of the POMCS payload at the tip (6 axis accelerometer, see at least ¶0040);
a computer system (control system 108) configured to:
remove the inertial loads from the forces and moments using the accelerations and velocities to obtain corrected measurement data corresponding to the output control forces and torques (see at least ¶0069-0070);
simulate a response of the dynamic system to the forces and moments in the corrected measurement data using a dynamic system emulator (see at least ¶0041-0045, Fig. 2); and
generate a reference trajectory for the robotic manipulator to track based upon the simulated response (see at least ¶0043-0047); and
a robotic manipulator controller configured to generate arm and joint commands based upon the reference trajectory and communicate the arm and joint commands to the robotic manipulator (see at least ¶0047).
Aghili does not explicitly teach using both a force/moment sensor and an inertial measurement system in a single embodiment
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the gravity emulation testbed as taught by Aghili with an additional sensor system for determining forces/moments and/or accelerations and velocities in order to provide for more accuracy and/or redundancy in determining the required parameters.
Regarding claim 2:
Aghili further teaches wherein the robotic manipulator has enough degrees of freedom (DOFs) to move through cartesian space at the tip of the robotic manipulator (see at least ¶0039).
Regarding claim 3:
Aghili further teaches wherein the measurement system includes a force moment sensor (FMS) or a virtual force moment sensor for measuring FMS data (see at least ¶0040).
Regarding claim 4:
Aghili further teaches wherein the measured forces and moments include inertial loads corresponding to acceleration and velocity at the tip resulting from the POMCS payload at the tip (see at least ¶0046).
Regarding claim 6:
Aghili further teaches wherein the inertial measurement system includes any one or more of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a camera, or a sensor for measuring IMU data (six-axis accelerometer, see at least ¶0040).
Regarding claim 7:
Aghili further teaches wherein the robotic manipulator is any one of a 6 DOF robotic manipulator, a 7 DOF robotic manipulator, a serial manipulator, a robotic arm, a parallel manipulator, and a Stewart platform (see at least ¶0039).
Regarding claim 8:
Aghili further teaches wherein the system emulates any one of a 0G environment, and a non-0G environment; wherein the non-0G environment is the Moon or Mars (see at least ¶0015).
Regarding claim 11:
Aghili further teaches wherein the position and orientation measurement and control system payload is a satellite attitude determination and control system (ADCS) payload (see at least 0037-0039, ¶0130).
Regarding claim 12:
Aghili further wherein the selected gravity environment is any one of 0G, perturbed microgravity, 1G, a form of gravity other than 0G, perturbed microgravity, or 1G (see at least ¶0015).
Regarding claim 13:
Aghili further wherein the dynamic system is a satellite or a spacecraft other than a satellite (see at least abstract, ¶0031-0034).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 18-20, Aghili teaches a system and method as in claims 1-13 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5, 9-10, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aghili as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aghili (Impedance control of Manipulators Carrying a Heavy Payload), hereinafter Aghili2.
Regarding claims 5, 9-10, and 16-17:
Aghili teaches the limitations as in claim 1 above.
Aghili is silent as to utilizing impedance control or fusion for calculating forces and moments.
Aghili2 teaches a system and method of controlling a manipulator carrying a load including the well-known technique of utilizing impedance control to determine forces and moments acting on the manipulator/load system (see at least abstract, column 1-2, p. 3410) and wherein fusing force and accelerometer sensors is a known alternative (see at least column 2, p. 3410)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the gravity emulating testbed as taught by Aghili with the well-known alternate techniques of control and parameter estimation as taught by Aghili2 in order to accurately determine required parameters for operating a manipulator in a desired way when carrying a significant load.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Anna Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
