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
The applicant has argued that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) should be withdrawn as the Specification contains structure sufficient to carry out the processes disclosed in the Claims in Paragraphs [0044]-[0047]. These arguments are persuasive and the corresponding rejections are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant has argued that amendments made to the independent claims that contain limitations that exert direct control of an autonomous robot cause the claims to overcome the currently rendered rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. These arguments are persuasive and the corresponding rejections are hereby withdrawn.
The applicant has argued that the amendments made to the independent claims overcome the current prior art rejections. These arguments are not persuasive as the currently cited references do disclose the amended limitations as is demonstrated in the rejection sections of this action.
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.
Claim 31 contains limitations “means for transforming one of the first second pose into a common reference system”, “means for planning a transition path…”, “means for controlling movement of the driverless mobile robot…”. These limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 32 contains the limitation, “means for travelling the path using the robot…”. This claim is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 14-20, 22-29, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang (US 2019/0310090).
As per Claim 14:
Huang discloses the following limitations:
“A method for planning a path of a driverless mobile robot for approaching a second pose specified in a second reference system, from a first pose specified in a first reference system, the method comprising: transforming with a computer one of the first or second pose into a common reference system, in which common reference system the other of the first or second pose is also described”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path.
“and planning a transition path from the first pose to the second pose in the common reference system on the basis of the first and second pose described in the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses planning a path between two points by lining up pose sets in a common reference system.
“wherein the common reference system is a fixed reference system of the environment”
Huang Paragraph [0024] discloses a common reference frame established within a real environment.
“controlling movement of the driverless mobile robot based on the planned transition path”
Huang Paragraph [0026] discloses controlling a robot within an environment.
With regards to Claim 15, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“the first pose is specified on or by a first path segment in the first reference system; and planning the transition path comprises planning based on the first path segment described in the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path.
With regards to Claim 16, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein planning the transition path based on the first path segment comprises transforming the first path segment into the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path.
With regards to Claim 17, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“:the second pose is specified in the second reference system on or by a second path segment; and planning the transition path comprises planning based on the second path segment described in the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. Multiple pose sets are used to define paths.
With regards to Claim 18, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein planning the transition path based on the second path segment comprises transforming the second path segment into the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. Multiple pose sets are used to define paths.
With regards to Claim 19, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“the first pose is specified in the first reference system on or by a first path segment, and transforming the first pose into the common reference system comprises transforming the first path segment into the common reference system; or the second pose is specified in the second reference system on or by a second path segment, and transforming the second pose into the common reference system comprises transforming the second path segment into the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. Multiple pose sets are used to define paths.
With regards to Claim 20, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“at least one of: the first pose is specified in the first reference system by a first path segment, or the second pose is specified in the second reference system by a second path segment; and the method further comprises that the transition path continuously transfers from the first path segment to the second path segment.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. Both the first and second path segment are arbitrarily a part of the overall path in which continuity is maintained.
With regards to Claim 22, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 19 and further discloses the following limitations:
“transforming of one of the first or second path segments into the common reference system is determined on the basis of a specified relation of a pose on the first path segment with a pose relative to the second path segment.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. Multiple pose sets are used to define paths.
With regards to Claim 23, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 22 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein at least one of: the specified relation is an identity of the pose; the pose on the first path segment is an end pose; the pose on the second path segment is an initial pose; or the relation of the pose relative to the second path segment is that the pose is on the second path segment.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. Multiple pose sets are used to define paths. These pose sets can correlate arbitrarily to either the start pose or end pose of a segment.
With regards to Claim 24, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“transforming of one of the first pose or the second pose into the common reference system is determined on the basis of a specified relation of a pose of the robot described in the reference system in which the one of the first and second pose is specified, with a pose of the robot described in the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. Multiple pose sets are used to define paths.
With regards to Claim 25, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 24 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein at least one of: the first pose is specified in the first reference system by a first path segment, and transforming the first pose into the common reference system comprises transforming the first path segment into the common reference system; the second pose is specified in the second reference system by a second path segment, and transforming the second pose into the common reference system comprises transforming the second path segment into the common reference system; the specified relation is an identity; or the pose of the robot described in the reference system or in the common reference system is an actual pose of the robot.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path.
With regards to Claim 26, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein: the first reference system is an environment-related reference system; and the second reference system is one of an object-related reference system or a different environment-related reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. The first reference system correlates to a self-referential system in which the origin of the path segment defining the pose set is set to be a null point and the second system is an environmental one defining the macroscopic region the path is being identified in.
With regards to Claim 27, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 26 and further discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the second reference system adjoins the first reference system or overlaps therewith at least in part.”
Huang Paragraph [0061] discloses transforming poses sets defined by path segments to a common reference frame as other pose sets along an overall path. The first reference system correlates to a self-referential system in which the origin of the path segment defining the pose set is set to be a null point and the second system is an environmental one defining the macroscopic region the path is being identified in. These reference systems can exist within each other thereby satisfying this limitation.
With regards to Claim 28, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 and further discloses the following limitations:
“A method for operating a driverless mobile robot, comprising: planning a path for approaching a second pose from a first pose according to claim 14; and travelling the path with the robot, in particular using at least one of the first reference system, the second reference system, or the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0062] discloses a mechanism travelling along a path.
With regards to Claim 29, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 28 and further discloses the following limitations:
“further comprising at least one of: updating the transition path; or updating the transformation into the common reference system.”
Huang Paragraph [0063] discloses updating a path.
As per Claim 31: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 14 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
With regards to Claim 32, this claim is substantially similar to Claim 28 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
As per Claim 33: this claim is substantially similar to Claim 14 and is therefore rejected using the same references and rationale.
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Becker (US 2016/0327383).
With regards to Claim 21, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14 but does not disclose the following limitations that Becker does disclose:
“wherein in that the common reference system is one of the first reference system or the second reference system.”
Becker Paragraph [0382] discloses a common reference frame based on a first reference frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Huang with the use of the same reference frames disclosed by Becker. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more efficient by utilizing common reference frames already established.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Welty (US 2017/0285648).
With regards to Claim 30, Huang discloses all of the limitations of Claim 29 but does not disclose the following limitations that Welty does disclose:
“wherein updating comprises updating while travelling the path with the robot.”
Welty Paragraph [0053] discloses updating a path dynamically as a robot is travelling along it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system disclosed by Huang with the dynamic updating disclosed by Welty. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to make the system more effective by allowing for dynamic re-routing in the face of a changing environment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Godfrey Maciorowski, whose telephone number is (571) 272-4652. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 examiner by telephone are unsuccessful the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GODFREY ALEKSANDER MACIOROWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/JOAN T GOODBODY/Examiner, Art Unit 3667