DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 12/21/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e). The provisional application No. 63/435,085, was filed on 12/23/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
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:
“Communication interface” in claim 1 , 19 and 20
Because there is no support in the specification for structure of communication interface, a 112b applies and 112f interpretation cannot be invoked.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 19 and 20 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.
Claim limitation “communication interface” 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. Submitted specification does not describe communication interface. It is not clear about the structure of communication interface. It is not clear whether communication interface is included into robot controller or not. It is not clear how a request is received via communication interface. The communication interface is acting as wi-Fi or Bluetooth or something else. 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.
Regarding claim 18, which recites “approximately” is not clear. The language approximately demonstrates some uncertainty and does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
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 1, 19 and 20 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.
As described above, the specification lacks structure that is clearly linked to the limitations interpreted under 112(f) of claim limitation “communication interface” of claim 1. Submitted specification does not describe communication interface. It is not clear about the structure of communication interface.
Because there is no disclosure of adequate structure to perform the claimed function, the specification does not convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-18 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim and failing to cure the deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-11, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”).
Regarding claim 1 (and similarly claim 19 and 20), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Murray discloses a robotic system (see at least fig 1), comprising:
a communication interface (see at least fig 2, where remote server, 212 is connected with robot control system, 200 via interface, 227); and
a processor coupled to the communication interface and configured to (see at least fig 2, where control system, 200 include processor, 234):
receive via the communication interface, from a first agent included in a plurality of robotically controlled agents associated with a shared workspace, a request to be provided a motion plan to perform a first pick and place task assigned to the first agent (see at least fig 2, where specific tasks, 215 is received. See also [0031], where “FIG. 1 shows a robotic system 100 which includes a plurality of robots 102a, 102b, 102c (collectively 102) that operate in a shared workspace 104 to carry out tasks”; see also [0089], where “The goal is typically a location at which the robot 102, 202 carries out a specified task (e.g., picking and placing an object)”; see also fig 1, motion planner); and
determine a first motion plan for the first agent to perform the first pick and place task assigned to the first agent, including by taking into consideration a second motion plan associated with a second agent included in the plurality of robotically controlled agents to perform a second pick and place task assigned to the second agent (see at least [0033] and [0085]);
wherein the first motion plan involves the first agent performing the first pick and place task at least in part while the second agent is performing the second pick and place task, and the second motion plan associated with the second agent is taken into consideration at least in part by considering a swept volume associated with at least a remaining uncompleted portion of the second motion plan as an obstacle with which the first agent will not collide while implementing the first motion plan (see at least fig 4, fig 5, [0043], [0048] and [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Murry further discloses a system wherein the first agent comprises a robotic arm (see at least fig 1).
Regarding claim 3, Murry further discloses a system wherein the first agent comprises a mobile robot (see at least fig 1, where robot is picking and placing object. So, robot is moving).
Regarding claim 7, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to instruct the first agent to begin implementing the first motion plan at a time associated with completion by the second agent of at least a first portion of the second motion plan (see at least fig 5, where motion of one robot is determined considering motion of another robot. See also [0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to receive via the communication interface, from the second agent, a progress report indicating the progress the second agent has made in implementing the second motion plan (see at least [0047], where “This may allow the motion planners 204a, 204b to generate new or updated motion plans based on a current or updated status of the environment.”).
Regarding claim 9, Murry further discloses a system wherein the first motion plan and the second motion plan are determined concurrently, prior to the first motion plan being assigned to the first agent or the second motion plan being assigned to the second agent (see at least [0137], where “at least some portion of motion planning for one robot may overlap or be concurrent with or in parallel with at least some portion of motion planning for one or more other robots.”; see also fig 6).
Regarding claim 10, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to select the second agent to begin implementation of the second motion plan prior to the first agent beginning implementation of the first motion plan (see at least fig 1, where multiple robots share spaces and movement is plan to avoid collision. So, second motion start before first motion).
Regarding claim 11, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to determine an ordered list of items to be picked and placed in the workspace (see at least [0163], where “The method 700 starts at 702, for example in response to a power ON of a robot and/or robot control system, in response to a call or invocation from a calling routine (e.g., method 500), or in response to receipt of a set or list or queue of tasks.”; see also [0089]).
Regarding claim 16, Murry further discloses a system wherein the first motion plan is determined based at least in part on state information received from a computer vision or other perception system (see at least fig 1, where 124 is perception system).
Regarding claim 17, Murry further discloses a system wherein the request is received from a first robot controller associated with the first agent (see at least fig 2, where motion plan is received from the robot control system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0088301 (“Erdim”).
Regarding claim 4, Murry further discloses a system wherein the swept volume is computed at least in part by representing one or both of the elements comprising the second agent and the payload being picked and placed by the second agent as a simple convex shape (see at least [0048], [0062] and [0075]).
Murry does not disclose the following limitation:
swept volume is computed…as a simple convex shape.
However, Erdim discloses a system wherein the swept volume is computed as a simple convex shape (see at least [0046] and fig 2A-C).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry to incorporate the teachings of Erdim by including the above feature for increasing safety during robotic movement by providing convex shape swept volumes total space a robot occupies during movement.
Regarding claim 5, Murry further discloses a system wherein the second motion plan comprises a set of end effector positions and orientations and associated joint configurations at each of a plurality of state points comprising the second motion plan (see at least fig 3B, [0019] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Murry further discloses a system wherein the swept volume represents the space that would be occupied by any part of the second agent or the payload as the second agent moves the payload through the workspace according to the second motion plan (see at least [0048], where “The swept volumes 211 represent respective volumes that a robot 202 or portion thereof would occupy when executing a motion or transition that corresponds to a respective edge 216 of the motion planning graph 208.”).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 11,772,833 (“Shi”).
Regarding claim 12, Murry does not disclose claim 11. However, Shi discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to determine based at least in part on the ordered list a placement order in which items will be picked and placed (see at least col 5, lines 60-67, where “The automated custom shipping container system may be configured to determine a sequence of placement 240 representing an order in which the items are to be placed into the custom-sized box. For example, the sequence of placement 240 may indicate that the third object 226 is to be placed into the box first, the first object 222 is to be placed into the box second, and the second object 224 is to be placed into the box last.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry to incorporate the teachings of Shi by including the above feature for increasing manufacturing efficiency by placing the picked object on desired location so that additional steps for placement is avoided.
Regarding claim 13, Murry further discloses a system wherein a number of agents included in the plurality of robotically controlled agents that are capable of picking and placing items in the workspace and selecting an n-tuple of items to be picked and placed first or next (see at least fig 1 and [0089]).
Murry does not disclose the following limitation:
placement order is determined at least in part by considering a plurality of n-tuples of items.
However, Shi further discloses a system wherein the placement order is determined at least in part by considering a plurality of n-tuples of items (see at least fig 2, where different types of items are picked and placed by robot based on the order list). Same motivation of claim 12 applies.
Regarding claim 14, Shi further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the items comprising the selected n-tuple are candidates to be picked and placed synchronously (see at least col 3, lines 1-5, where “Certain embodiments include systems with robotic arms that can be used to retrieve or otherwise grasp objects and to place the objects into a custom-sized box that may be generated at least partially synchronously by a box making machine or other custom container generation system.”). Same motivation of claim 12 applies.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 11,772,833 (“Shi”), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 2023/0182315 (“Merkle”).
Regarding claim 15, Murry in view of Shi does not disclose claim 15. However, Merkle discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to determine the items comprising the selected n-tuple are not candidates to be picked and placed synchronously based at least in part on a determination that the respective pick locations and/or placement locations of any two or more items comprising the n-tuple overlap (see at least [0145] and [0168]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry in view of Shi to incorporate the teachings of Merkle by including the above feature for avoiding product damage and avoidance of splitting product throughout the factory floor by no picking overlapped object.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0286156 (“Murry”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 11,931,122 (“Nowlin”).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Murry further discloses a system wherein the processor is configured to monitor and control synchronized execution of the first motion plan (see at least [0044], where “The system can monitor the other robots and cause the robot to move toward a goal in response to a suitable path becoming unblocked or cleared or otherwise found, even before the given robot achieves the staging pose.”).
Murry does not disclose the following limitation:
the first robot controller operates a control loop at a rate of approximately 1000 Hz and…the second motion plan at a rate of approximately 500 Hz.
However, Nowlin discloses a system the first robot controller operates a control loop at a rate of approximately 1000 Hz and…the second motion plan at a rate of approximately 500 Hz (see at least claim 8, where “the movement controller is configurable to scale a rate of movement of the first robotic surgical instrument to a second rate of movement, different from the first rate of movement”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Murry to incorporate the teachings of Nowlin by including the above feature for avoiding collision by setting different motion rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. 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.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657