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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/30/2023, was filed before the
mailing of a First Office Action on the Merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37
CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 03/30/2023. Claims 1-12 are pending and examined below.
Joint Inventors
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a device. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis -Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within the one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An operation command generation device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire skill information relating to a skill to be used in a motion planning of a robot;
generate, based on the skill information, a skill tuple which is a set of variables in a system model, the variables being associated with the skill, the system model being set in the motion planning;
generate a skill use operation command that is a temporal logic command representing an operation corresponding to the skill tuple.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the ‘acquiring’ and ‘generating’ steps encompass a user acquiring information related to motion planning, noting down further information related to details of the motion planning, and generating potential movements for satisfying the motion plan.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An operation command generation device comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions;
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire skill information relating to a skill to be used in a motion planning of a robot;
generate, based on the skill information, a skill tuple which is a set of variables in a system model, the variables being associated with the skill, the system model being set in the motion planning;
generate a skill use operation command that is a temporal logic command representing an operation corresponding to the skill tuple.
For the following reason, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of ‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one processor’, and ‘a robot’ the examiner submits that this limitation is an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the ‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one processor’, and ‘a robot’ are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the ‘acquiring’ and ‘generating’ steps, therefore acting as generic computer components to perform the abstract idea. The ‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one processor’, and ‘a robot’ are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one processor’, and ‘a robot’).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of ‘at least one memory’, ‘at least one processor’, and ‘a robot’ amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-10 ultimately depend from claim 1 and do not recite any additional elements that extend beyond the abstract idea of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as see above for representative claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as see above for representative claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooba, US 20180085922 A1, herein referred to as Ooba, and in view of Hayashi et al., US 20210001481 A1, herein referred to as Hayashi.
Regarding claim 1, Ooba discloses at least one memory configured to store instructions (Paragraph 0025; system includes memory), acquire skill information relating to a skill to be used in a motion planning of a robot (Paragraph 0024; grasp sequencing is determined for a plurality of objects on a conveyor; the sequence itself can be considered skill information wherein the skill is grasping the objects), generate, based on the skill information, a skill tuple which is a set of variables in a system model, the variables being associated with the skill, the system model being set in the motion planning (Paragraphs 0021 and 0031; an index is calculated based on the grasping sequence which includes distancing and rotation between objects; the index can be considered the skill tuple and the distance and rotation can be considered variables for the system and are associated with the grasp sequence skill; the index is integrated into the overall system), generate a skill use operation command that is a temporal logic command representing an operation corresponding to the skill tuple (Paragraph 0036-0037; the robot arm may have controls generated to execute the grasp sequence based on the indexing which is calculated based on the distance and rotation between the objects; a cycle time for execution of the grasp sequence can be determined using the movement speed and the rotation speed required to pick up all the objects in the sequence), and a controller (Fig. 4, items 20 and 40, Paragraph 0021; system includes a robot and controller), but fails to explicitly disclose at least one processor. However, Hayashi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches at least one processor (Fig. 4, item 151; system includes a CPU). Therefore, from the teaching of Hayashi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to have modified, with a reasonable expectation for success, the robotic system of Ooba to include one or more processors. The motivation to do so would be to utilize an extremely well-known device to perform control operations related to the robot. Examiner would also like to point out that official notice could have been taken regarding the robot and controller in 0021 of Ooba since a robot as known in the art undeniably requires a processor of some kind. However, Examiner felt that a secondary teaching reference would be best utilized here to show that processors are incredibly well-known in the art, especially with robots.
Regarding claim 2, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ooba further discloses generating a skill use evaluation function that is an evaluation function in which a cost of using the skill is considered (Paragraphs 0035-0036; the robot may measure cycle times for a given grasp sequence; the measurement may be considered the skill use evaluation function and the cycle time may be considered the cost of using the skill) and perform the motion planning through optimization in which the skill use operation command and the skill use evaluation function are used (Paragraph 0038; the robot may optimize the grasp sequence by minimizing cycle times).
Regarding claim 3, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Ooba further discloses the skill information includes information on the cost of using the skill (Paragraphs 0035-0036; a grasp sequence is associated with a measured cycle time), and generating the skill use evaluation function based on the skill information (Paragraphs 0035-0036; the cycle time measurement is performed during the grasp sequence).
Regarding claim 4, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 2. Ooba further discloses generating a control command for the robot based on a target trajectory of a state in the system model, the target trajectory being generated as the motion planning (Paragraphs 0037-0038; control commands may be generated to execute a given grasp sequence; the grasp sequence includes the robot moving to each object for grasping which is a trajectory; the target trajectory state can be one in which the robot has finished the full grasp sequence).
Regarding claim 5, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ooba further discloses acquiring, as the skill information, information on the skill relating to contact or join between objects or release thereof (Paragraphs 0037-0038; the grasp sequence is one in which the robot grasps objects in a given order).
Regarding claim 6, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 5. Ooba further discloses the skill information includes label information for identifying the skill (Fig. 2 items p1-p6, Paragraphs 0024, 0037; a sequence for grasping includes an order for which objects are grasped; object order numbers p1, p2, etc. may be considered label information and indicate the order for grasping), and acquiring, from a database of the skill information, the skill information associated by the label information with object-to-object relation information, the object-to-object relation information representing a relation between objects in a target state relating to a task of the robot (Paragraphs 0025-0026; the combination calculation unit 12 determines the actual grasp sequencing and stores it in memory; the index calculation unit may determine distancing and rotations between each object which is used for determining the grasp sequence; the distancing and rotation between each object may be considered the object-to-object relation information).
Regarding claim 7, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ooba further discloses the skill information includes information on: a required time for execution of the skill, an operation command of the skill, a set of states where the skill is executable, and a set of states after execution of the skill (Paragraphs 0037-0038, 0041; a given grasp sequence may have a cycle time which can be the required time to execute; the control of the robot to execute the grasp sequence may be the operation command; the grasping locations needed to execute the grasp sequence may be considered a set of states for skill execution; the robot may continue grasp sequence planning for the next object combination on the conveyor, this can be considered a set of states after execution of the skill), generating the skill use operation command which includes a temporal logic based on the operation command and the required time (Paragraph 0036-0037; the robot arm may have controls generated to execute the grasp sequence based on the indexing which is calculated based on the distance and rotation between the objects; a cycle time for execution of the grasp sequence can be determined using the movement speed and the rotation speed required to pick up all the objects in the sequence), and the temporal logic describing an operation to make a transition of a state in the system model from the set of the states where the skill is executable to the set of states after execution of the skill (Paragraphs 0037-0038; the robot may determine a grasp sequence by leaving out a last object so as to minimize cycle time, where the last object may be associated with a future object combination; this omission of the last object may be considered the temporal logic as it reduces the cycle time of a given grasp sequence and occurs between sets of states (*see above limitation for rationale on state sets)).
Regarding claim 8, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Ooba further discloses the skill tuple at least includes, as the set of variables, a skill input indicative of presence or absence of an input of the skill and a constraint switch variable indicative of presence or absence of a constraint between objects (Paragraphs 0021 and 0031; an index is calculated based on the grasping sequence which includes distancing and rotation between objects; the index can be considered the skill tuple and the distance and rotation can be considered variables for the system and are associated with the grasp sequence skill; the distances and rotation can indicate a presence or absence of a constraint between the objects).
Regarding claim 9, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 4. Ooba further discloses generating one or more state sub-sequences into which a state sequence representing the target trajectory is decomposed, based on a skill input sequence representing presence or absence of an input of the skill in the target trajectory (Paragraphs 0037-0038, 0041; the grasping locations needed to execute the grasp sequence may be considered a set of states for skill execution; movement from one object to another for grasping may be considered a state sub-sequence; the presence or absence of movement for grasping objects can be considered the skill input sequence as the skill (grasping) is only executed when objects are present; no skill input is present when there are no objects to be grasped), configuring one or more controllers of the robot for the respective state sub-sequences (Fig. 4 items 14 and 20, Paragraphs 0037-0038; the robot control unit 14 is used to control the robot 20 to execute the grasp sequence for the objects on the conveyor), and generating the control command into which the controllers are integrated (Fig. 4 items 14 and 20, Paragraphs 0037-0038; the robot is controlled to execute the grasp sequence).
Regarding claim 10, Ooba in view of Hayashi teaches all the limitations of claim 9. Ooba further discloses the skill information includes information on a controller to be used for the skill (Fig. 4 items 12 and 20, Paragraph 0024; grasp sequencing is determined for a robot to grasp a plurality of objects on a conveyor; the robot controller and robot are necessarily indicated as the sequence is for grasping objects with the robot), and generating the controllers based on the skill input sequence and the skill information (Fig. 4 items 14 and 20, Paragraph 0024; the robot controller 14 is used to control the robot 20 for executing the grasp sequence; because of this, the robot controller is ‘generated’ as it is generating the necessary control commands for the robot).
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim limitations are similar to those in claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale as seen above in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER ALLEN BUKSA whose telephone number is (571)272-5346. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on (571) 272-4876. 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.
/C.A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/THOMAS E WORDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658