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 .
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.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Claims 9 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed subject matter is drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, nor is the abstract idea as a judicial exception integrated into a practical application. With regards to step 1, the claimed invention is directed to a method.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
For step 2A, prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed under MPEP 2106.04 to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within 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 in bold text).
Claim 1 recites:
A robotic system for conducting a multi-object search task, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute computer readable instructions stored in at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured with a representation of a multi-object search task having at least one belief pertaining to a state and at least one observation space within an environment of the robot, wherein the state is represented in terms of classes and objects and each object has at least one attribute and a semantic label relating to at least one target object;
and at least one sensor responsive to the processor, the at least one sensor configured to detect and provide sensor data indicative of the observation space.
These limitations, as drafted, are a method that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106.04(d), 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 MPEP 2106.04(d), 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 elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1 recites:
A robotic system for conducting a multi-object search task, the system comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute computer readable instructions stored in at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured with a representation of a multi-object search task having at least one belief pertaining to a state and at least one observation space within an environment of the robot, wherein the state is represented in terms of classes and objects and each object has at least one attribute and a semantic label relating to at least one target object;
and at least one sensor responsive to the processor, the at least one sensor configured to detect and provide sensor data indicative of the observation space.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the element of “A robotic system” and “at least one processor configured to execute computer readable instructions stored in at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium” is merely describing generic computing components which allow the abstract idea to be applied on a computer or to merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, taken alone, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional element of “for conducting a multi-object search task,” “configured with a representation of a multi-object search task having at least one belief pertaining to a state and at least one observation space within an environment of the robot, wherein the state is represented in terms of classes and objects and each object has at least one attribute and a semantic label relating to at least one target object,” “responsive to the processor,” and “configured to detect and provide sensor data indicative of the observation space.” This additional element is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the MPEP 2106.05, independent 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, regardless of whether they are looked at individually or in combination.
As discussed above, the additional elements of “for conducting a multi-object search task,” “configured with a representation of a multi-object search task having at least one belief pertaining to a state and at least one observation space within an environment of the robot, wherein the state is represented in terms of classes and objects and each object has at least one attribute and a semantic label relating to at least one target object,” “responsive to the processor,” and “configured to detect and provide sensor data indicative of the observation space” each amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Dependent claims 10 - 16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or also contain well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 – 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulos et al. (US Patent No: 9,791,921 B2, hereinafter Poulos) in view of Kim et al. (US Pub No: 2020/0042823 A1, hereinafter Kim) and Peng et al. (US Pub No: 2019/0025075 A1, hereinafter Peng).
Regarding Claim 1:
Poulos discloses:
A method of performing a multi-object search task with a mobile robot, the mobile robot having at least one processor executing computer readable instructions stored in at least one non- transitory computer readable storage medium to perform operations comprising the steps of. Column 67 describes a processor. Column 69 describes memory devices.
receiving, from a user, a language command identifying at least one target object and at least one location corresponding to the target object. Column 57 describes speech input from a user while gazing at a target region.
Poulos does not disclose classifying a target object and adding a sematic label.
Kim, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
updating at least one belief associated with the at least one target object based on the language command, the at least one belief pertaining to a state and at least one observation space within an environment of the robot, wherein the state is represented in terms of classes and objects and each object has at least one attribute and a semantic label. Paragraph [0161] describes a robot that is able to update a label of the AI model and a state of the environment.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Poulos to incorporate the teachings of Kim to show classifying a target object and adding a sematic label. One would have been motivated to do so that the robot can understand what type of item the robot is looking for.
Poulos does not disclose a robot searching for a target object.
Peng, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
and searching, using at least one sensor on the mobile robot while traversing the at least one observation space identified in the updated belief, for the at least one target object. Paragraph [0052] describes searching a position of a target object and marking it on a map.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Poulos to incorporate the teachings of Peng to show a robot searching for a target object. One would have been motivated to do so that the robot can quickly find the target object.
Claims 9 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 8:
Peng teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising the step of generating a map of the environment. Paragraph [0052] describes searching a position of a target object and marking it on a map.
The reason to combine Peng with Poulos is for the same reason as in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 – 4 and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulos in view of Kim and Peng and further in view of Chrysanthakopoulos (US Pub No: 2015/0178293 A1, hereinafter Chrysan).
Regarding Claim 2:
Poulos, Kim and Peng teach the above limitations in claim 1. Poulos, Kim and Peng do not teach a partial observable markov decision process.
Chrysan, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the multi-object search task is represented in an Object- Oriented Partially Observable Markov Decision Process model. Paragraph [0052] describes a partially observable Markov decision process
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Poulos, Kim and Peng to incorporate the teachings of Chrysan to show a partial observable markov decision process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a principled framework for modeling and solving decision making problems in uncertain environments.
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 3:
Poulos and Chrysan teach:
he method of Claim 1, further comprising the step of updating the at least one belief based upon a new language command. Column 57 of Poulos describes speech input from a user while gazing at a target region. Paragraph [0068] describes a robot reaching a destination and awaiting a new command.
The reason to combine Chrysan with Poulos, Kim and Peng are for the same reason as in claim 2.
Regarding Claim 4:
Kim teaches:
The method of Claim 3, further comprising the step of adjusting a course of travel based upon the updated belief. Paragraph [0126] describes adjusting a self-driving travel path of a robot based on an updated user input.
Regarding Claim 11:
Poulos, Kim and Chrysan teach:
The robotic system of Claim 9, wherein the at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises: a command module configured to receive from a user a language command identifying the at least one target object and at least one location corresponding to the at least one target object; and an update module configured to update the at least one belief, associated with the at least one target object, based on the language command. Column 57 of Poulos describes speech input from a user while gazing at a target region. Paragraph [0068] describes a robot reaching a destination and awaiting a new command. Paragraph [0126] of Kim describes adjusting a self-driving travel path of a robot based on an updated user input.
Claim(s) 5 – 6 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulos in view of Kim and Peng and further in view of Horvitz et al. (US Patent No: 9,870,532 B2, hereinafter Horvitz).
Regarding Claim 5:
Poulos, Kim and Peng teach the above limitations in claim 1. Poulos, Kim and Peng do not teach a Monte Carlo planning process.
Horvitz, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of Claim 1, updating the at least one belief includes utilizing an Object- Oriented Partially Observable Monte-Carlo Planning process to update the at least one belief on a per object distribution basis. Column 2, lines 19 – 29 describes a Monte Carlo procedure for a partially observable Markov decision process.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Poulos, Kim and Peng to incorporate the teachings of Horvitz to show a Monte Carlo planning process. One would have been motivated to do so to improve decision making, enhancing communication and better quantifying risk and uncertainty.
Claims 14 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 5 and are rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding Claim 6:
Poulos and Chrysan teach:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising updating the belief based on object-specific observations made by the at least one sensor. Column 57 of Poulos describes speech input from a user while gazing at a target region. Paragraph [0068] describes a robot reaching a destination and awaiting a new command.
The reason to combine Chrysan with Poulos, Kim and Peng are for the same reason as in claim 2.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poulos in view of Kim and Peng and further in view of Han et al. (US Pub No: 2016/0334800 A1, hereinafter Han).
Regarding Claim 7:
Poulos, Kim and Peng teach the above limitations in claim 1. Poulos, Kim and Peng do not teach notifying a user by providing a audible or visual signal.
Han, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising, notifying the user upon finding the at least one target object by providing an audible, visual, audiovisual, and/or electronic indication. Paragraph [0089] describes a robot 100 that can output a notification message via a visual or auditory signal.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified Poulos, Kim and Peng to incorporate the teachings of Han to show notifying a user by providing a audible or visual signal. One would have been motivated to do so that the user knows if a robot has accomplished or not accomplished a task.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected on the same grounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY KHANDPUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5090. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 6:30.
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 at (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.
/JAY KHANDPUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3658