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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections of claims 20-39 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 20-39 under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn.
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: execution engine subsystem in claims 20, 27, and 34; and execution memory subsystem in claims 21 and 35.
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. Examples are in pg. 20, ln. 20-28, of the specification as filed.
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.
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 20, 24-27, 31-34, and 38-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 8-11, 13, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,498. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader in scope than, and thus infringe upon, the patent claims.
Instant claim
Corresponding patent claim
20
11
24
13
25
18
26
19
27
1
31
3
32
8
33
9
34
10
38
18
39
19
As per claims 38 and 39 of the instant application, claims 18 and 19 teach the claimed invention but are directed towards a system instead of computer readable medium. However, it would have been obvious, if not inherent, that the system would also have the computer readable medium having instructions to perform the method using a robot.
Claims 21-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,498 in view of Ma (US 2021/0027058).
Re claim 21, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches wherein the execution memory subsystem is configured to maintain a database of facts about an environment of the robot based on inputs from one or more sensor subsystems in the environment of the robot (see at least para. 104-107 for building a voxel map for collision free motion planning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it allows the robotic system to keep track of objects that are outside the current field of view of the sensors which allows for collision free movement.
Re claim 22, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches wherein the action specifies the performance of a skill by the robot (see at least Fig. 5 and para. 48 for example skills such as pickup bottle or cup).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it enables the robotic system to implement a physical action to complete a task.
Re claim 23, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches wherein the execution engine subsystem is configured to execute domain-specific rule sets (see at least Fig. 5 and para. 48 for examples of rule sets such pickup bottle or cup if bottle or cup is detected; lines 20-23 of page 14 of the specification of the instant application as filed defines domain-specific code is for the performance of a particular skill).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it tailors the system to a specific application, environment, or type of robot, rather than relying on generic, one-size-fits-all programming.
Claims 28-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,498 in view of Ma (US 2021/0027058).
Re claim 28, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches maintaining, by the execution memory subsystem, a database of facts about an environment of the robot based on inputs from one or more sensor subsystems in the environment of the robot (see at least para. 104-107 for building a voxel map for collision free motion planning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it allows the robotic system to keep track of objects that are outside the current field of view of the sensors which allows for collision free movement.
Re claim 29, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches wherein the action specifies the performance of a skill by the robot (see at least Fig. 5 and para. 48 for example skills such as pickup bottle or cup).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it enables the robotic system to implement a physical action to complete a task.
Re claim 30, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches executing, by the execution engine subsystem, domain-specific rule sets (see at least Fig. 5 and para. 48 for examples of rule sets such pickup bottle or cup if bottle or cup is detected; lines 20-23 of page 14 of the specification of the instant application as filed defines domain-specific code is for the performance of a particular skill).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it tailors the system to a specific application, environment, or type of robot, rather than relying on generic, one-size-fits-all programming.
Claims 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,498 in view of Ma (US 2021/0027058).
Re claim 35, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches wherein the execution memory subsystem is configured to maintain a database of facts about an environment of the robot based on inputs from one or more sensor subsystems in the environment of the robot (see at least para. 104-107 for building a voxel map for collision free motion planning).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it allows the robotic system to keep track of objects that are outside the current field of view of the sensors which allows for collision free movement.
Re claim 36, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches wherein the action specifies the performance of a skill by the robot (see at least Fig. 5 and para. 48 for example skills such as pickup bottle or cup).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it enables the robotic system to implement a physical action to complete a task.
Re claim 37, patent ‘498 is silent regarding, but Ma teaches executing, by the execution engine subsystem, domain-specific rule sets (see at least Fig. 5 and para. 48 for examples of rule sets such pickup bottle or cup if bottle or cup is detected; lines 20-23 of page 14 of the specification of the instant application as filed defines domain-specific code is for the performance of a particular skill).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of patent ‘498 with the features of Ma because it tailors the system to a specific application, environment, or type of robot, rather than relying on generic, one-size-fits-all programming.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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 at (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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619