DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-26 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 misspelled –Object—as “Objekt,” and Figure 13 seems to be a reference to a publication and is not a figure at all. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Under 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6),
Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements (e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the paragraphs are not numbered as requested by 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6). Examiner notes that numbering the paragraphs in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6) assists with interviews and citations to the instant specification. Examiner kindly requests Applicant submit a new specification which follows the guidance under 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6).
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is also 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 the Abstract contains 428 words. 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 Objections
Claims 23 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 10 of claim 23 should recite –said method—rather than “said methods” since there is only one previously recited method;
Line 5 of claim 25 should recite –initiating—rather than “nitiating.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner is interpreting the phrase “driving of the actuator based on the determined event sequence” as recited in claims 1 and 12 to refer to driving a physical actuator component.
Examiner is interpreting the term “control” recited in claims 1, 8, 10, 12, and 18 as “control system” as defined on page 1 of the present specification.
Examiner is interpreting the term “(partial) event sequences” as recited in claims 1, 10, 12 as “individual process steps” as defined on page 4 of the present specification.
Examiner is interpreting the term “in particular” as recited in claims 22-26 as “including.”
Examiner is interpreting the use of “and/or” as recited in claims 1, 3, 8, 12-14, 19, and 23-26 as “or.”
Examiner is interpreting the term “may” recited in claim 24 as the start-object and target-object situations could denote virtual situation, but they are not required to do so to satisfy the claim limitation.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
“input means for receiving a start-object situation…” (claim 12; example of supporting structure found on page 33, which includes a controller, a sensor, a data transfer interface, a computer, or from a memory);
“output means for receiving a target-object situation…” (claim 12; example of supporting structure found page 26, which includes a controller);
“computing means for determining an event sequence…” (claim 12; example of supporting structure found on page 33, which includes a computer);
“means for detecting known sequences of events…” (claim 13; supporting structure cannot be found in the specification);
“means for storing at least one of…” (claim 14; example of supporting structure found on page 7, which includes a memory);
“an actuator for converting…” (claims 20 and 21; supporting structure cannot be found in the specification);
“a comparison unit…to compare at least two object situations…” (claim 23; example of supporting structure found page 29, which includes a memory and CPU);
“a first communication interface…to communicate with other vehicles…” (claims 22; supporting structure cannot be found in the specification); and
“a second communication interface…for communication of all vehicles with a server…” (claim 22; supporting structure cannot be found in the specification).
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (9) recited above use the generic placeholder “unit,” “means,” or “apparatus” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “means,” “unit,” or other generic placeholder in (1)-(9) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(9) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “unit,” “means,” and “apparatus” in (1)-(9) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13, 20, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites a “means for detecting known sequences of events.” However, the present disclosure does not provide a sufficient written description to reasonably convey to one skill in the art what structure was intended to be used in performing the functions that follow the “means for” language. Other than reciting the claim language, the specification is silent as to any structure to support the claimed function. Therefore, claim 13 fails the written description requirement.
Claims 20 and 21 recites a “an actuator for converting.” However, the present disclosure does not provide a sufficient written description to reasonably convey to one skill in the art what structure was intended to be used in performing the functions that follow the “for” language. Other than reciting the claim language, the specification is silent as to any structure to support the claimed function. Therefore, claim 20 and 21 fails the written description requirement.
Claim 22 recites “a first communication interface…to communicate with other vehicles,” and “a second communication interface…for communication of all vehicles with a server.” However, the present disclosure does not provide a sufficient written description to reasonably convey to one skill in the art what structure was intended to be used in performing the functions that follow the “interface” language. Other than reciting the claim language, the specification is silent as to any structure to support the claimed function. Therefore, claim 22 fails the written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 21, and 23, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-11, 13-20, 22, and 24-26 depend from claims 1 and/or 12 and are indefinite for the same reason. Examiner is interpreting the phrase following the term “preferably” as desired, but not required to satisfy the claim limitation.
Regarding claims 13, 20, 21, and 22, the claim limitations “means for detecting known sequences of events,” “an actuator for converting,” “a first communication interface…to communicate with other vehicles,” and “a second communication interface…for communication of all vehicles with a server” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0205992 to Pandya et al.
Regarding claim 1, Pandya et al. discloses:
A control method for driving an actuator for converting a start-object situation into a target-object situation by means of a control, preferably an adaptive control, comprising (¶ [0025] describing controlling a robot arm from a start position to a target position):
a) Determining (S01) a start-object situation by means of a sensor (¶ [0044] describing determining the start position by means of a camera, which is a sensor; see also ¶ [0041]),
b) Defining (S02) a target-object situation (¶ [0044] describing determining the target position by means of a camera; see also ¶ [0041]),
c) Determining (S03) an event sequence suitable for converting the start-object situation into the target-object situation from a set of known (partial) event sequences by
iterative search (S03a) of known (partial) event sequences comprising the start- and/or target-object situation and/or object situations from partial event sequences of previous iteration steps, selecting (S03b1) at least one event sequence for converting the start- object situation into the target-object situation or building (S03b2) a new event sequence for converting the start-object situation into the target- object situation on the basis of the partial event sequences found in the substep of the iterative search and their concatenations (¶ [0044] describing iteratively deriving segments, or sequences, of the trajectory for moving the object from the start position to the target position; see also Figure 4 depicting the robot arm moving from start position 114 to the target position 116; see also ¶ [0024] describing the sequence of actions to perform the task),
d) Driving (S04) of the actuator based on the determined event sequence by the control (¶ [0044] describing driving an actuator to move the robot arm along the determined sequence of movement from the start position to the target position).
Regarding claim 2, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pandya et al. further discloses:
wherein the step of selecting (S03b1) the event sequence from an amount of suitable event sequences is based on at least one quantitative suitability criterion (¶ [0049] describing the sequence selection being based on error, which is determining whether the sequence is suitable).
Regarding claim 3, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pandya et al. further discloses:
wherein an effort and/or cost indicator is used as a quantitative suitability criterion (¶ [0049] describing the sequence selection being based on error, which is determining whether the sequence is suitable based on cost; see also ¶ [0054] describing a number of different criterion is used to make the sequence determination that could be interpreted as cost and/or effort).
Regarding claim 5, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Pandya et al. further discloses:
wherein a success indicator is used as a quantitative suitability criterion (¶ [0049] describing the sequence selection being based on error, which is determining whether the sequence is suitable based on whether the sequence would be successful; see also ¶ [0054] describing a number of different criterion is used to make the sequence determination that could be interpreted as cost and/or effort).
Regarding claim 6, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pandya et al. further discloses:
wherein the sensor data determined in step (a) is normalized before being used to determine the start-object situation (¶ [0035] describing the organizing and registration of the objects and location data, which is normalized the data).
Regarding claim 7, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pandya et al. further discloses:
further comprising a step of storing (S05) the determined sequence of events (¶ [0035] describing the storing of the processing results).
Regarding claim 8, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pandya et al. further discloses:
further comprising a step of terminating step (c) of the method if no suitable event sequence for reaching the target can be determined and/or the control cannot perform the step of determining an event sequence for reaching the target-object situation (¶¶ [0054], [0055] describing cancelling the task if an error is detected that prevents the task from continuing and/or a waypoint cannot be determined).
Regarding claim 9, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Pandya et al. further discloses:
wherein step (c) of the method is automatically terminated after the elapsing of a predefined period of time (¶ [0072] describing terminating the step when all commands that correspond to the planned trajectory have been executed/completed, which occurs within a predetermined period of time since the planned trajectory and time to travel the trajectory was predetermined).
Regarding claim 10, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Pandya et al. further discloses:
further comprising a step of adding a (partial) event sequence newly determined by the control to the amount of known (partial) event sequences (¶ [0099] describing updating the stored sequence data with new sequences of the trajectory).
Regarding claim 11, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Pandya et al. further discloses:
further comprising a step of automatically supplementing the known event sequences with possible further event sequences while the method is not used to reach a target-object situation (¶ [0018] describing automatically updating the waypoints (or sequence) when they are no longer feasible, i.e., they are not being used to reach the target location; see also ¶¶ [0056], [0057] describing replacing the planned waypoints with updated waypoints when a triggering event had prevented the robot from proceeding to the target position).
Regarding claim 12, Pandya et al. discloses:
A system for driving an actuator for converting a start-object situation into a target-object situation by means of a control, preferably an adaptive control, comprising (¶ [0025] describing controlling a robot arm from a start position to a target position):
a) Input means for receiving (SO1) a start-object situation from a sensor (¶ [0044] describing determining the start position by means of a camera, which is a sensor; see also ¶ [0041]),
b) Input means for receiving (S02) a target-object situation (¶ [0044] describing determining the target position by means of a camera; see also ¶ [0041]),
c) Computing means for determining (S03) an event sequence suitable for converting the start-object situation to the target-object situation from an amount of known (partial) event sequences by
iterative search (S03a) of known (partial) event sequences comprising the start- and/or target-object situation and/or object situations from partial event sequences of previous iteration steps, selecting (S03b1) at least one event sequence for converting the start- object situation into the target-object situation or building (S03b2) an optimized event sequence for converting the start-object situation into the target-object situation on the basis of the (partial) event sequences found in the partial step of the iterative search and their concatenations (¶ [0044] describing iteratively deriving segments, or sequences, of the trajectory for moving the object from the start position to the target position; see also Figure 4 depicting the robot arm moving from start position 114 to the target position 116; see also ¶ [0033] describing the computing equipment used to perform the process),
d) Output means for outputting a control signal for driving (S04) the actuator based on the determined event sequence by the control (¶ [0044] describing driving an actuator to move the robot arm along the determined sequence of movement from the start position to the target position).
Regarding claim 13, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Pandya et al. further discloses:
further comprising means for detecting known sequences of events and/or known object situations and/or associations therebetween (¶ [0080] describing accessing the predetermined sequences that are stored in the storage device).
Regarding claim 14, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Pandya et al. further discloses:
further comprising means for storing at least one of a success indicator and/or at least one of a time duration indicator and/or an effort indicator and/or at least one of a cost indicator and/or at least one of a relevant time point for event sequences (¶ [0035] describing storing the processing results, which includes the success indicator described in ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 15, Pandya et al. discloses:
A computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to implement step (c) of the method of any one of claim 1 (See claim 1 above; see also ¶ [0021] describing computer executable instructions to perform the method of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Pandya et al. discloses:
A computer-readable medium on which is stored the computer program product of claim 15 (See claim 15 above; see also ¶ [0034] describing the computer-readable medium).
Regarding claim 17, Pandya et al. discloses:
A computer comprising at least one computer readable medium of claim 16 (See claim 16 above; see also ¶ [0034] describing the computer-readable medium).
Regarding claim 18, Pandya et al. discloses:
A control, preferably an adaptive control, comprising a computer of claim 17 (See claim 17 above; see also ¶ [0033] describing the processors used to perform the tasks as controllers).
Regarding claim 19, Pandya et al. discloses:
A computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to human-readably represent results of a computer program according to of claim 15 (See claim 15 above; see also ¶ [0021] describing use of any suitable display medium to display the task results, including an LCD), or to convert the results into another (data) format which can be human-readably represented by a further computer program product, and/or to cause the computer program product to implement the method (NOTE: Claimed in the alternative and not required to satisfy the claim).
Regarding claim 20, Pandya et al. discloses:
An industrial robot system comprising at least one industrial robot, at least one control system of claim 12 (See claim 12 above), a sensor for detecting a start-object situation (¶ [0039] describing the sensors used to perform the task of detecting the start position), and an actuator for converting a start-object situation into a target-object situation (¶ [0027] describing the actuation devices to move the robot arm from a start position to a target position).
Regarding claim 21, Pandya et al. discloses:
A vehicle guidance system, preferably for a motor vehicle, in particular driver assistance system or system for semi-automated or autonomous driving, comprising a control system of claim 12 (See claim 12 above; see also ¶ [0046] describing use of the process to guide the vehicle to the target position; see also ¶ [0039] describing use of sensors to implement the transportation of the robot to a target position, which is vehicle guidance), a sensor for determining a start-object situation (¶ [0039] describing the sensors used to perform the task of detecting the start position), and an actuator for converting a start-object situation into a target-object situation (¶ [0027] describing the actuation devices to move the robot arm from a start position to a target position).
Regarding claim 22, Pandya et al. discloses:
A traffic control system suitable for implementing the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 above), comprising:
a variety of motor vehicles (¶ [0024] describing a plurality of robot unit with each configured to perform the task of claim 1), as well as per motor vehicle:
a first communication interface, in particular a wireless interface, which is set up to communicate with other motor vehicles in a first immediate environment of the motor vehicle, a second communication interface, in particular wireless interface, in particular by means of a cellular connection, in particular 5G, for communication of all vehicles with a server (¶¶ [0032], [0036] describing multiple communication units for both communicating between the robots and for each of the robots to communicate with a server via wireless communication, including 5G).
Regarding claim 23, Pandya et al. discloses:
A device for robot-controlled process optimization, comprising:
a human-machine interface, preferably a desktop environment, preferably a desktop environment of a workstation PC comprising mouse and/or keyboard (¶ [0037] describing the human input/output device used to perform the task, including a mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, and user interface),
a sensor which is set up to record an object situation of the man-machine interface, a comparison unit which is set up to compare at least two object situations (¶ [0073] describing comparing the object current location determined via sensor to the currently maintained/valid set of waypoints),
a memory and a CPU which are adapted to execute the control method of claim 1 (See claim 1 above; see also ¶ [0033] describing the CPUs and memory used to perform the task),
wherein the memory can in particular also be provided in a cloud and comprises a database set up for said methods (¶ [0034] describing use of cloud storage devices),
wherein a robot can communicate with the cloud via a data interface, in particular a wireless data interface, in particular by means of a cellular connection, in particular 5G (¶¶ [0032], [0036] describing multiple communication units for both communicating between the robots and for each of the robots to communicate with a server via wireless communication, including 5G).
Regarding claim 24, Pandya et al. discloses:
A method for robot-controlled process optimization, comprising a method of claim 1 and/or the system of claim 12 (See claim 1 and/or claim 12 above), wherein in particular the start- and target-object situations may denote virtual situations (NOTE: Use of the term “may” removes any patentable weight given to the limitation of virtual situations), wherein a system is provided at least comprising
a human-machine interface, in particular a desktop environment, in particular a desktop environment of a workstation PC comprising mouse and/or keyboard (¶ [0037] describing the human input/output device used to perform the task, including a mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, and user interface),
a sensor system which is set up to record an object situation from the man-machine interface (¶ [0037] describing use of a sensor to receive object motion commands from the user interface),
a memory and a CPU for processing (¶ [0033] describing the CPUs and memory used to perform the task), and
wherein the method further comprises at least one step of a comparing step, wherein two necessary object situations are compared with each other (¶ [0073] describing comparing the object current location determined via sensor to the currently maintained/valid set of waypoints).
Regarding claim 25, Pandya et al. discloses:
A method for normalizing object kinds to support the control method of claim 1 (See claim 1 above), of the system of claim 12 (See claim 12 above), in particular collecting and/or using declarative object knowledge, further comprising the following steps:
nitiating (CO1) a spatial view (¶ [0039] describing use of sensor to obtain a spatial view),
Establishing (C02) a purpose of the spatial view in the form of at least one indication of purpose of the spatial view (¶ [0039] describing that the spatial view is create to location the position of the robot),
Detecting (C03) at least one specific object in a space section (¶ [0039] detecting physical properties of the robot and the surrounding),
Assigning (C04) a specific object to an object kind, in particular a more general object kind, depending on at least one indication of purpose of the spatial observation (¶ [0039] assigning a location to physical components), and
Saving (CO5) the assignment of the specific object and the object kind using a database (¶ [0042] describing using the saved tracking data obtained from the sensors for detecting and tracking the position of the robot components).
Regarding claim 26, Pandya et al. discloses:
A method for normalizing object situations for supporting the control of claim 1 (See claim 1 above), of the system of claim 12 (See claim 12 above) and/or using the method for normalizing object kinds of claim 25 (See claim 25 above), in particular collecting and/or using declarative object knowledge, further comprising the following steps:
Initiating (D01) a spatial view (¶ [0039] describing use of sensor to obtain a spatial view),
Establishing (D02) a purpose of the spatial view in the form of at least one purpose statement of the spatial view (¶ [0039] describing that the spatial view is create to location the position of the robot),
Detecting (D03) at least one specific object in a space section (¶ [0039] detecting physical properties of the robot and the surrounding),
Assigning (D04) the specific object to an object kind to which the specific object belongs, in particular assigning by reading out the object kind from a database (¶ [0039] assigning a location to physical components; see also ¶ [0042] describing using the saved tracking data obtained from the sensors for detecting and tracking the position of the robot components),
Detecting (DO5) a first information about a position, in particular relative position, of the at least one specific object in space (¶ [0039] detecting position), and
Determining (D06) a normalized object situation for the space segment using the object kinds and the first information (¶ [0042] normalizing the object by use of saved detected positions, tracked locations, tracked orientations, etc. from the sensors that represent a current and/or set of past locations for the target).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandya et al. in view of U.S. Pat. No. 9,744,665 to Linnell et al.
Regarding claim 4, Pandya et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Pandya et al. does not expressly disclose wherein energy consumption is used as a quantitative suitability criterion.
Linnell et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches energy consumption as a criterion (Col. 16, ll. 7-28 describing using the control system to control energy efficiency; see also Col. 12, ll. 25-27 describing use of stored energy to drive the actuator).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pandya et al.’s invention to incorporate use of energy consumption as evaluation criterion, as taught by Linnell et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in making progress toward achieving a building’s target level of energy efficiency (Linnell et al. at Col. 16, ll. 23-27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5pm 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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571) 270-5227. 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.
/JDH/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3666