DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first office action regarding application number 19/470,878, filed on 30 September 2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains less than 50 words. Additionally, the Abstract has not been presented on a separate sheet but instead contains other parts and material from the WIPO application. See MPEP 601.01(b). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL_Chaudhary "Dynamics and Balancing..." (Chaudhary hereinafter), in view of NPL_Nakamura "A Computational Scheme…" (Nakamura hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1
Chaudhary teaches a system (see Page 1: Introduction, all) comprising:
a closed chain robotic linkage (see Fig. 3.10, all; Page 45: Dynamics of Closed-loop Systems, all; Pages 63-64: 3.4 Carpet Scrapping Machine, all);
at least one memory; at least one processor, coupled to the at least one memory and the closed chain robotic linkage (see Page 1: Introduction, "The Computer-Aided analyses of Multibody Mechanical Systems emerged as an important scientific tool in the Applied Mechanics field. This is possible due to improvements of the computer technology at the level of both hardware and software."; Page 76: 3.4.5 Computation efficiency, all; the claimed "memory" is inherent), to perform operations comprising:
representing the closed chain robotic linkage as a serial chain robotic linkage (see Fig. 3.11, Subsystems of the spanning tree for the carpet scrapping mechanism, all; Page 54: Fig. 3.4, step "Convert the closed-loop system into a spanning tree using graph theory approach: Different open subsystems (serial- and/or tree-type)"; Page 63: 3.4 Carpet Scrapping Machine, "As described in Subsection 3.1.1, the spanning tree of the mechanism given in Fig. 3.10(b) is shown in Fig. 3.11. This is obtained by cutting the appropriate joints. They are between links #1-#2, #2-#5, and #2-#7 of the closed-loops, #0-#1-#2-#3, #0-#1-#2-#5-#4-#0, and #0-#1-#2 #7-#6-#4-#0, respectively. The resulting spanning tree, Fig. 3.11, has three subsystems, I, II, and III. The links and joints of the subsystems are numbered as per the scheme described in subsection 3.1.1. Subsystem I has two moving links, #I-1 and #I-2, with 2-DOF. Subsystem II has only one moving link, #II-1, which is connected to its previous body, i.e., #0, at joint, II-1. Both the subsystems, I and II, are serial types, whereas subsystem III is a tree-type);
using a serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage (see Page 53, "In the first or subsystem level recursion, the determinate subsystems, as defined in Subsection 3.1.2, are identified. The sets of Lagrange multipliers, and the driving torques/forces, if any, of the determinate systems are calculated. With the known Lagrange multipliers of the determinate subsystems, some or all of the remaining indeterminate subsystems become determinate for which the above step is repeated. With all the Lagrange multipliers, and the driving torques/forces of the spanning tree known"; Page 54: Fig. 3.4, Subsystem recursion, especially step "Solve constrained NE equations of motion for the unknown Lagrange multipliers plus the driving forces/torques associated with the subsystem. ";);
in response to using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage, determining real-time inverse dynamics related to the closed chain robotic linkage (see Page 53, "Hence, the total computational complexity to find λ1,λ2 and τD using the subsystem approach is approximately order (4). This is certainly less than what is required using the system approach. Finally, the constraint wrenches at the uncut joints are solved using the body-level recursion. "; Page 54: Fig. 3.4, Body recursion "Evaluation of the constraint moments and forces recursively at the uncut joints:...");
in response to determining the real-time inverse dynamics related to the closed chain robotic linkage, exercising real time control of the closed chain robotic linkage to physically move the closed chain robotic linkage from a first physical position to a second physical position (see Fig. 3.15, all; Page 53, "This method is developed here. It is a two-level recursive method to compute all the Lagrange multipliers, driving torques/forces, and the constraints wrenches at the uncut joints … Finally, the constraint wrenches at the uncut joints are solved using the body-level recursion."; Page 76, "The CPU time is estimated for 134 positions of the mechanism during one complete rotation of the link, #II-1.").
Chaudhary teaches each and every element of the claim, as discussed above. For the sake of compact prosecution and for the possible argument that "Chaudhary is silent regarding determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage and determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage", Nakamura teaches the claim limitations.
That is, Nakamura teaches a system (see Abstract, all) comprising:
a closed chain robotic linkage (see Fig. 1(a), all; Abstract, all; Section 2.1 Equivalent Transformation to Tree Structure Mechanism, "As shown in Fig.1 (a), a closed loop includes several actuated joints and unactuated joints, which are sometimes called passive joints.");
at least one memory; at least one processor, coupled to the at least one memory and the closed chain robotic linkage (see Abstract, all; Section 4.1 Non-Redundant Actuator System, "The whole computation included 1493 arithmetic operations (798 multiplications, 510 additions, 185 subtractions) and took 2.0 ms on a SUN3/160 with a Floating Point Accelerator."; Conclusion, all; the claimed "memory" is inherent), to perform operations comprising:
representing the closed chain robotic linkage as a serial chain robotic linkage (see Fig. 1(b), all, Equivalent Transformation of Closed Link Mechanisms to Open Link Mechanisms"; Section 2.1 Equivalent Transformation to Tree Structure Mechanism, all, especially "By cutting each loop at one of the passive joints, a closed link mechanism is transformed into an open link tree structure mechanism as shown in Fig.1 ... 1) A closed link mechanism is transformed into an open loop tree structure mechanism and it is assumed that the unactuated joints of the tree structure mechanism have virtual actuators."; Section 4.1 Non-Redundant Actuator System, all);
using a serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage (see Section 2.1, Equivalent Transformation to Tree Structure Mechanism, "The basic principles to compute the inverse dynamics of the closed link mechanisms are as follows: … 2) The joint torques of the tree structure mechanism including the virtual actuators are computed for exactly the same motion of the tree structure as is required of the closed link mechanism ... Joint torque τ of the tree structure mechanism derives from the second step of the basic principles stated in the previous subsection."; Conclusion, step (1));
in response to using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage, determining real-time inverse dynamics related to the closed chain robotic linkage (see Equation 6, all; Section 1. Introduction, "Since this formulation explicitly includes the arbitrary variables to be chosen in coordinating redundant actuators, it can be used for the real-time control of redundantly-actuated closed link mechanisms requiring optimization of a given performance criterion."; Section 2.1 Equivalent Transformation to Tree Structure Mechanism, "The basic principles to compute the inverse dynamics of the closed link mechanisms are as follows: ... 3) The joint torques of the actuated joints of the original closed link mechanism are computed from the obtained joint torques of the tree structure mechanism by taking the constraints into account."; Section 2.2 Consideration of Constraints, "Now, let the torques of the actuated joints of the original closed link mechanism be represented ... The Joint torque τ1C of a closed link mechanism, for a given motion, is computed by Eq.(6) from the joint torque τ of the corresponding open link tree structure mechanism required to make the same motion."; Conclusion, step (1));
in response to determining the real-time inverse dynamics related to the closed chain robotic linkage, exercising real time control of the closed chain robotic linkage to physically move the closed chain robotic linkage from a first physical position to a second physical position (see Section 1. Introduction, "Based on the proposed computational scheme, the dynamics of closed link mechanisms with redundant actuators are also formulated. Since this formulation explicitly includes the arbitrary variables to be chosen in coordinating redundant actuators, it can be used for the real-time control of redundantly-actuated closed link mechanisms requiring optimization of a given performance criterion."; Section 4.1 Non-Redundant Actuator System, all).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Chaudhary to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage and determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage, as taught by Nakamura, in order to easily compute joint torques of actuated joints of the original closed chain robotic linkage from joint torques of the serial chain robotic linkage representation.
Regarding Claim 2
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 1 (as discussed above in claim 1),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein:
the closed chain robotic linkage comprises: (1) a remote center of motion (RCM) (see Fig. 3.10(b), joint between links #0 and #4; see also Fig. 3.11: Joint III-1°; Page 68, " ...are the Cartesian coordinates of joints, 1° and C, respectively."), (2) a closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks (see Fig. 3.10(b), links #0 and #2-#7), and (3) an additional link coupled to the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks (see Fig. 3.10(b), link #1); and
the additional link is constrained to rotate about a fixed remote center of motion point (RCMP) (see Fig. 3.10(b), joint between links #0 and #1; see also Fig. 3.11: Joint II-1; Page 72, The input motion provided to link #II-1 is a constant speed of 45 rpm (712 rad/s). The fixed frame, XYZ, is located at joint II-1, Fig. 3.11, where axis Z is orthogonal to the page.").
Regarding Claim 3
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 2 (as discussed above in claim 2),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks constrain the additional link such that the additional link is to behave as a serial link (see Fig. 3.10(b), link #1 and Fig. 3.11, Subsystem II; Page 63 "Subsystem II has only one moving link, #II-1 … Both the subsystems, I and II, are serial types").
Regarding Claim 4
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 3 (as discussed above in claim 3),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the representing the closed chain robotic linkage as the serial chain robotic linkage includes determining equivalency statements for inverse dynamics between the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks and both of a serial chain robotic first link and a serial chain robotic second link (see Fig. 3.11, all, any of the links of subsystems I-III can correspond to the claimed "serial chain robotic first link and a serial chain robotic second link"; Page 54: Fig. 3.4, step "Convert the closed-loop system into a spanning tree using graph theory approach: Different open subsystems (serial- and/or tree-type)"; Pages 63: 3.4 Carpet Scrapping Machine, "As described in Subsection 3.1.1, the spanning tree of the mechanism given in Fig. 3.10(b) is shown in Fig. 3.11. This is obtained by cutting the appropriate joints. They are between links #1-#2, #2-#5, and #2-#7 of the closed-loops, #0-#1-#2-#3, #0-#1-#2-#5-#4-#0, and #0-#1-#2 #7-#6-#4-#0, respectively. The resulting spanning tree, Fig. 3.11, has three subsystems, I, II, and III. The links and joints of the subsystems are numbered as per the scheme described in subsection 3.1.1. Subsystem I has two moving links, #I-1 and #I-2, with 2-DOF. Subsystem II has only one moving link, #II-1, which is connected to its previous body, i.e., #0, at joint, II-1. Both the subsystems, I and II, are serial types, whereas subsystem III is a tree-type; Page 72: Table 3.2. Link parameters of the scrapping machine, all).
Nakamura additionally teaches wherein the representing the closed chain robotic linkage as the serial chain robotic linkage includes determining equivalency statements for inverse dynamics between the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks and both of a serial chain robotic first link and a serial chain robotic second link (see Fig 1(b), all, Equivalent Transformation of Closed Link Mechanisms to Open Link Mechanisms"; Section 2.1 Equivalent Transformation to Tree Structure Mechanism, all, especially "By cutting each loop at one of the passive joints, a closed link mechanism is transformed into an open link tree structure mechanism as shown in Fig.1 ... The basic principles to compute the inverse dynamics of the closed link mechanisms are as follows: 1) A closed link mechanism is transformed into an open loop tree structure mechanism and it is assumed that the unactuated joints of the tree structure mechanism have virtual actuators."; Section 4.1 Non-Redundant Actuator System, all).
Regarding Claim 5
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 4 (as discussed above in claim 4),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the representing the closed chain robotic linkage as the serial chain robotic linkage includes solving the equivalency statements to produce inertial properties for the serial chain robotic linkage (see Pages 66-72, all, especially "The multiloop scrapping mechanism shown in Fig. 3.10(b) has the parameters shown in Table 3.2. They are used here to find the constraint forces at the joints of the mechanism."; Page 72: Table 3.2. Link parameters of the scrapping machine, all).
Regarding Claim 6
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 5 (as discussed above in claim 5),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the determining equivalency statements for inverse dynamics between the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks and both of the serial chain robotic first link and the serial chain robotic second link includes mapping masses of the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks to masses of the serial chain robotic first link and the serial chain robotic second link (see Pages 66-72, all, especially "The multiloop scrapping mechanism shown in Fig. 3.10(b) has the parameters shown in Table 3.2. They are used here to find the constraint forces at the joints of the mechanism."; Page 72: Table 3.2. Link parameters of the scrapping machine, Mass).
Regarding Claim 7
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 6 (as discussed above in claim 6),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the determining equivalency statements for inverse dynamics between the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks and both of the serial chain robotic first link and the serial chain robotic second link includes mapping inertias of the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks to inertias of the serial chain robotic first link and the serial chain robotic second link (see Pages 66-72, all, especially "The multiloop scrapping mechanism shown in Fig. 3.10(b) has the parameters shown in Table 3.2. They are used here to find the constraint forces at the joints of the mechanism."; Page 72: Table 3.2. Link parameters of the scrapping machine, Moment of inertia at link origin).
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 7 (as discussed above in claim 7),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the representing the closed chain robotic linkage as the serial chain robotic linkage includes parameterizing kinematics for the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks (see Pages 66-72, all, especially "The multiloop scrapping mechanism shown in Fig. 3.10(b) has the parameters shown in Table 3.2. They are used here to find the constraint forces at the joints of the mechanism."; Page 72: Table 3.2. Link parameters of the scrapping machine, all).
Regarding Claim 9
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 8 (as discussed above in claim 8),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks includes more than two sublinks (see Fig. 3.10(b), links of Subsystems I-III; Page 72: Table 3.2. Link parameters of the scrapping machine, all; Page 64, "The links and joints of the subsystems are numbered as per the scheme described in subsection 3.1.1. Subsystem I has two moving links, #I-1 and #I-2, with 2-DOF. Subsystem II has only one moving link, #II-1, which is connected to its previous body, i.e., #0, at joint, II-1. ").
Regarding Claim 10
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 9 (as discussed above in claim 9),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein at least two of the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks are parallel to each other (see Fig. 3.10(b), links #5-#6 and/or links #4-#7).
From Fig. 3.10(b), links #5 and #6 appear to be parallel to each other, as well as links #4 and #7. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further rearrange the sublinks of the system of modified Chaudhary to be parallel to each other, in order to achieve a desired structural arrangement of a parallel closed chain robot. Rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice when it would not have modified the operation of the device, and the above modification would have not modified the operation of the system of Chaudhary.
Regarding Claim 11
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 10 (as discussed above in claim 10),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein at least two of the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks have rotation axes parallel to each other (see Fig. 3.10(b), any of the joints between links #4-#7; Fig. 3.11, subsystem III, all).
From Fig. 3.10(b), links #5 and #6 appear to be parallel to each other, as well as links #4 and #7. Accordingly, their rotation axis also appear to be parallel to each other. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further rearrange the sublinks of the system of modified Chaudhary to have rotation axes parallel to each other, in order to achieve a desired structural arrangement of a parallel closed chain robot. Rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice when it would not have modified the operation of the device, and the above modification would have not modified the operation of the system of Chaudhary.
Regarding Claim 14
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 2 (as discussed above in claim 2),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein:
the serial chain robotic linkage comprises a serial chain robotic first link (Link 2′) (see Fig. 3.11, link #II-0);
the serial chain robotic linkage comprises a serial chain robotic second link (Link 3′) (see Fig. 3.10(b), link #II-1);
the serial chain robotic second link is constrained to rotate about the fixed RCMP (see Fig. 3.11: Joint II-1; Page 63, "Subsystem II has only one moving link, #II-1, which is connected to its previous body, i.e., #0, at joint, II-1."; Page 72, The input motion provided to link #II-1 is a constant speed of 45 rpm (712 rad/s). The fixed frame, XYZ, is located at joint II-1, Fig. 3.11, where axis Z is orthogonal to the page.").
Examiner recommends to incorporate the features of Claim 2 plus the features of Claim 12 plus the features of Claim 14 into independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 14 (as discussed above in claim 14),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the serial chain robotic first link is coupled to the serial chain robotic second link at the fixed RCMP (see Fig. 3.11: Joint II-1; Page 63, "Subsystem II has only one moving link, #II-1, which is connected to its previous body, i.e., #0, at joint, II-1."; Page 72, The input motion provided to link #II-1 is a constant speed of 45 rpm (712 rad/s). The fixed frame, XYZ, is located at joint II-1, Fig. 3.11, where axis Z is orthogonal to the page.").
Regarding Claim 16
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 15 (as discussed above in claim 15),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the serial chain robotic second link is constrained to rotate about the fixed RCMP (see Fig. 3.11: Joint II-1; Page 63, "Subsystem II has only one moving link, #II-1, which is connected to its previous body, i.e., #0, at joint, II-1."; Page 72, The input motion provided to link #II-1 is a constant speed of 45 rpm (712 rad/s). The fixed frame, XYZ, is located at joint II-1, Fig. 3.11, where axis Z is orthogonal to the page.").
Regarding Claim 17
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 16 (as discussed above in claim 16),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the RCM is a 1-degree of freedom planar RCM (see Fig. 3.10(b), joint between links #0 and #4; see also Fig. 3.11: Joint III-1°; Page 63, all).
Regarding Claim 18
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 17 (as discussed above in claim 17),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the closed chain robotic linkage is a physical linkage (see Fig. 3.10, all; Page 63 all).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhary (as modified by Nakamura) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20190151182 A1 and Kim hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 12
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 11 (as discussed above in claim 11),
Chaudhary is silent regarding wherein no physical joint exists at the RCMP.
Kim teaches a system (see all Figs.; [0005]) comprising:
a closed chain robotic linkage (see Figs. 1 and 13, all; [0005] and [0067]);
at least one memory; at least one processor, coupled to the at least one memory and the closed chain robotic linkage (see [0088]), to perform operations comprising:
exercising real time control of the closed chain robotic linkage to physically move the closed chain robotic linkage from a first physical position to a second physical position (see all Figs.; [0005]);
wherein:
the closed chain robotic linkage comprises:
(2) a closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks (see links 11-14 in most Figs.), and (3) an additional link coupled to the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks (see support link 10 in most Figs.; [0005]-[0007] and [0067]); and
the additional link is constrained to rotate about a fixed remote center of motion point (RCMP) (see RCM in most Figs.; [0007 "In some example embodiment, the support link is configured to rotate about a remote center of motion (RCM) in a joint of the user connecting the distal part and the proximal part of the user, or in a vicinity of the joint."] and [0067 "The support link 10 may rotate about a remote center of motion (RCM)."]);
wherein no physical joint exists at the RCMP (see RCM in most Figs., especially Figs. 13-15; [0067 "In the structure as shown in FIG. 1 and the like, the RCM may be formed in the vicinity of the talocrural joint of the user. The RCM may be determined based on lengths of the plurality of links 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 constituting the motion assistance apparatus."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system of modified Chaudhary to include no physical joint at the RCMP, as taught by Kim, in order to match the RCMP of the system with a RCM of the talocrural joint of a patient so that an assistance force may be applied effectively to the patient.
Regarding Claim 13
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 12 (as discussed above in claim 12),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the representing the closed chain robotic linkage as the serial chain robotic linkage includes solving inertial-equivalency statements between the closed chain robotic linkage and the serial chain robotic linkage (see Pages 66-72, all, especially "The multiloop scrapping mechanism shown in Fig. 3.10(b) has the parameters shown in Table 3.2. They are used here to find the constraint forces at the joints of the mechanism."; Page 72: Table 3.2. Link parameters of the scrapping machine, all).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhary (as modified by Nakamura) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of NPL_ Luh "Computation of Input..." (Luh hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 19
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 18 (as discussed above in claim 18),
Chaudhary is silent regarding wherein the serial chain robotic linkage is a digital linkage.
Luh teaches a system (see Abstract, all) comprising:
a closed chain robotic linkage (see Fig. 2, Schematic diagram of robot with one closed kinematic chain; Page 99, Step 1);
at least one memory; at least one processor, coupled to the at least one memory and the closed chain robotic linkage (see Abstract, all; Section IV. Conclusions, "A method of computing the input generalized forces for an industrial robot with a closed kinematic chain mechanisms has been developed"; the claimed "memory" is inherent), to perform operations comprising: representing the closed chain robotic linkage as a serial chain robotic linkage (see Fig. 3. Coordinates of two links adjacent to cut joint; Pages 99-100, "Step 1: In the closed-chain mechanism, select one joint that is not driven by an independent actuator. Assume that the joint is cut open so that the robot now has an open-chain mechanism in a tree structure with n joints. Each joint in the open-chain");
using a serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage (see Page 100, steps 2-3, especially "Compute the input generalized forces τ for all the joints using a known method for the virtual open-chain robot. Further discussions on the methods are given in the last two paragraphs of this section.");
in response to using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage, determining real-time inverse dynamics related to the closed chain robotic linkage (see Page 100, Steps 4-7, especially "Compute the first (n - m) components of the input generalized force vector for the closed-chain robot τc by (25). Set the last m components of the input force vector to zero. The input force at the virtually cut joint is also set to zero. ");
in response to determining the real-time inverse dynamics related to the closed chain robotic linkage, exercising real time control of the closed chain robotic linkage to physically move the closed chain robotic linkage from a first physical position to a second physical position (see Page 96, "Thus, for industrial robots consisting of closed kinematic chain mechanisms, it is necessary to develop a computationally efficient scheme for joint forces/torques for integration into the control systems of robots for the purpose of real-time control");
wherein the serial chain robotic linkage is a digital linkage (see Abstract, "First the closed-chain is virtually cut open, and the kinematics of the virtual open-chain mechanism are analyzed"; Page 100, steps 2-3, especially "Compute the input generalized forces τ for all the joints using a known method for the virtual open-chain robot. Further discussions on the methods are given in the last two paragraphs of this section.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the serial chain robotic linkage of the system of modified Chaudhary to be a digital linkage, as taught by Luh, in order to facilitate computing inverse dynamics related to the closed chain with a simplified digital linkage
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 18 (as discussed above in claim 19),
Chaudhary is silent regarding wherein the serial chain robotic linkage is a simulated version of the closed chain robotic linkage.
Luh teaches wherein the serial chain robotic linkage is a simulated version of the closed chain robotic linkage (see Abstract, "First the closed-chain is virtually cut open, and the kinematics of the virtual open-chain mechanism are analyzed"; Page 100, steps 2-3, especially "Compute the input generalized forces τ for all the joints using a known method for the virtual open-chain robot. Further discussions on the methods are given in the last two paragraphs of this section.").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the serial chain robotic linkage of the system of modified Chaudhary to be a simulated version of the closed chain robotic linkage, as taught by Luh, in order to facilitate computing inverse dynamics related to the closed chain with a simplified simulated linkage.
Regarding Claim 21
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 20 (as discussed above in claim 20),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage includes using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time torques related to the serial chain robotic linkage (see Page 53, "In the first or subsystem level recursion, the determinate subsystems, as defined in Subsection 3.1.2, are identified. The sets of Lagrange multipliers, and the driving torques/forces, if any, of the determinate systems are calculated. With the known Lagrange multipliers of the determinate subsystems, some or all of the remaining indeterminate subsystems become determinate for which the above step is repeated. With all the Lagrange multipliers, and the driving torques/forces of the spanning tree known"; Page 54: Fig. 3.4, Subsystem recursion, especially step "Solve constrained NE equations of motion for the unknown Lagrange multipliers plus the driving forces/torques associated with the subsystem. ").
Nakamura additionally teaches wherein the using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage includes using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time torques related to the serial chain robotic linkage (see Section 2.1, Equivalent Transformation to Tree Structure Mechanism, "The basic principles to compute the inverse dynamics of the closed link mechanisms are as follows: … 2) The joint torques of the tree structure mechanism including the virtual actuators are computed for exactly the same motion of the tree structure as is required of the closed link mechanism ... Joint torque τ of the tree structure mechanism derives from the second step of the basic principles stated in the previous subsection."; Conclusion, step (1)).
Regarding Claim 22
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 21 (as discussed above in claim 21),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage includes using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage (see Page 53, "In the first or subsystem level recursion, the determinate subsystems, as defined in Subsection 3.1.2, are identified. The sets of Lagrange multipliers, and the driving torques/forces, if any, of the determinate systems are calculated. With the known Lagrange multipliers of the determinate subsystems, some or all of the remaining indeterminate subsystems become determinate for which the above step is repeated. With all the Lagrange multipliers, and the driving torques/forces of the spanning tree known"; Page 54: Fig. 3.4, Subsystem recursion, especially step "Solve constrained NE equations of motion for the unknown Lagrange multipliers plus the driving forces/torques associated with the subsystem. ").
Nakamura additionally teaches wherein the using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage includes using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage (see Section 2.1, Equivalent Transformation to Tree Structure Mechanism, "The basic principles to compute the inverse dynamics of the closed link mechanisms are as follows: … 2) The joint torques of the tree structure mechanism including the virtual actuators are computed for exactly the same motion of the tree structure as is required of the closed link mechanism ... Joint torque τ of the tree structure mechanism derives from the second step of the basic principles stated in the previous subsection."; Conclusion, step (1)).
Chaudhary is silent regarding determine real-time Coriolis forces related to the serial chain robotic linkage.
Luh teaches wherein the using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time inverse dynamics related to the serial chain robotic linkage includes using the serial chain solver on the serial chain robotic linkage to determine real-time Coriolis forces related to the serial chain robotic linkage (see Equation (15); Page 98, "Likewise, the Coriolis and the centrifugal forces depend on q as well as the joint velocities q. In general, the equation of motion for the open-chain robot can be written as …").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system of modified Chaudhary to determine real-time Coriolis forces related to the serial chain robotic linkage, as taught by Luh, in order to calculate torque of the closed chain robotic actuators.
Claims 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaudhary (as modified by Nakamura and Luh) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 23
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 22 (as discussed above in claim 22),
Chaudhary is silent regarding wherein:
the closed chain robotic linkage is included in a limb of an exoskeleton; the exercising real time control of the closed chain robotic linkage to physically move the closed chain robotic linkage from a first physical position to a second physical position includes exercising real time control of the limb to physically move the limb from a first physical position to a second physical position.
Kim teaches wherein:
the closed chain robotic linkage is included in a limb of an exoskeleton (see all Figs.; [0002] and [0005]); the exercising real time control of the closed chain robotic linkage to physically move the closed chain robotic linkage from a first physical position to a second physical position includes exercising real time control of the limb to physically move the limb from a first physical position to a second physical position (see all Figs.; [0005 "In some example embodiment, the motion assistance apparatus may include a proximal support configured to support a proximal part of a user; a first drive link and a second drive link, the first drive link and the second drive link each configured to perform translational motions with respect to the proximal support such that the first drive link and the second drive link perform the translational motions at different velocities; a support link having a first end and a second end, the first end rotatably connected to the first drive link and the second end rotatably connected to the second drive link, the support link configured to vary a length thereof; and a distal support connected to the support link, the distal support configured to support a distal part of the user."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system of modified Chaudhary include the closed chain robotic linkage in a limb of an exoskeleton and to physically move the closed chain robotic linkage from a first physical position to a second physical position, as taught by Kim, in order to effectively provide an assistance force to a patient.
Regarding Claim 24
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 23 (as discussed above in claim 23),
Chaudhary is silent regarding wherein the operations comprise performing physical therapy on a patient coupled to the exoskeleton by exercising real time control of the limb to physically move the limb from the first physical position to the second physical position.
Kim teaches wherein the operations comprise performing physical therapy on a patient coupled to the exoskeleton by exercising real time control of the limb to physically move the limb from the first physical position to the second physical position (see all Figs.; [0005 "In some example embodiment, the motion assistance apparatus may include a proximal support configured to support a proximal part of a user; a first drive link and a second drive link, the first drive link and the second drive link each configured to perform translational motions with respect to the proximal support such that the first drive link and the second drive link perform the translational motions at different velocities; a support link having a first end and a second end, the first end rotatably connected to the first drive link and the second end rotatably connected to the second drive link, the support link configured to vary a length thereof; and a distal support connected to the support link, the distal support configured to support a distal part of the user."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system of modified Chaudhary to perform physical therapy on a patient coupled to the exoskeleton by exercising real time control of the limb to physically move the limb from the first physical position to the second physical position, as taught by Kim, in order to effectively provide an assistance force to a patient.
Regarding Claim 25
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 24 (as discussed above in claim 24),
Chaudhary is silent regarding wherein the patient includes a body part located at the RCMP.
Kim teaches wherein the patient includes a body part located at the RCMP (see RCM in most Figs., especially Figs. 3 and 13-15; [0007] and [0067 "In the structure as shown in FIG. 1 and the like, the RCM may be formed in the vicinity of the talocrural joint of the user."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system of modified Chaudhary to perform physical therapy on a patient coupled to the exoskeleton by exercising real time control of the limb to physically move the limb from the first physical position to the second physical position, wherein the patient includes a body part located at the RCMP, as taught by Kim, in order to match the RCMP of the system with a RCM of the talocrural joint of the patient so that an assistance force may be applied effectively to the patient.
Regarding Claim 26
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system according to claim 25 (as discussed above in claim 25),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein the closed chain robotic linkage includes a loop of links formed by the closed chain robotic linkage of sublinks (see Fig. 3.10, all; Page 45: Dynamics of Closed-loop Systems, all; Pages 63-64: 3.4 Carpet Scrapping Machine, all).
Regarding Claim 27
Modified Chaudhary teaches the system of claim 26 (as discussed above in claim 26),
Chaudhary further teaches wherein neither of the serial chain robotic first link nor the serial chain robotic second link is included in a loop of links (see Fig. 3.11, Subsystems of the spanning tree for the carpet scrapping mechanism, all; Page 54: Fig. 3.4, step "Convert the closed-loop system into a spanning tree using graph theory approach: Different open subsystems (serial- and/or tree-type)"; Pages 63: 3.4 Carpet Scrapping Machine, "As described in Subsection 3.1.1, the spanning tree of the mechanism given in Fig. 3.10(b) is shown in Fig. 3.11. This is obtained by cutting the appropriate joints. They are between links #1-#2, #2-#5, and #2-#7 of the closed-loops, #0-#1-#2-#3, #0-#1-#2-#5-#4-#0, and #0-#1-#2 #7-#6-#4-#0, respectively. The resulting spanning tree, Fig. 3.11, has three subsystems, I, II, and III. The links and joints of the subsystems are numbered as per the scheme described in subsection 3.1.1. Subsystem I has two moving links, #I-1 and #I-2, with 2-DOF. Subsystem II has only one moving link, #II-1, which is connected to its previous body, i.e., #0, at joint, II-1. Both the subsystems, I and II, are serial types, whereas subsystem III is a tree-type).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
