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 .
Examiner's Note
The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the reference(s) as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments (see MPEP 2123). The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claim(s) above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim(s), typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/02nd/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
101 Rejection
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.
Claims 1-20 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter
Step 1 Analysis:
Claims 1-17, and 19 are directed to a system which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Claims 18, and 20 are directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites in part:
obtain (S1) knowledge (20) on a physical skill by observing a demonstration (10), by a human user (3), of the physical skill Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as person X observing person Y wash dishes to learn how to wash dishes). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
update (S2) the knowledge base (2) with the obtained knowledge (20) Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as person X changing how they wash dishes based on their observation of how person Y washes dishes). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
generate (S3) a hypothesis (30) of using the physical skill in a different context compared to a context of the demonstration (10) by performing similarity considerations on the knowledge base (2) using the obtained knowledge (20) Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as person X changing how they wash cups based on their observation of how person Y washes dishes). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
update the knowledge base (2) according to the hypothesis (30) in case of receiving the confirmation (40) or discard the hypothesis (30) in case of receiving the refusal (50) Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator adding or removing items from a list based on receiving a confirmation or refusal). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of:
A robot system (1) for learning one or more new semantic relations in a knowledge base (2) of physical skills is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
present (S4) the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3) recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
receive (S5) a confirmation (40) or a refusal (50) from the human user (3) with regard to the presentation (S4) of the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3) is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Step 2B Analysis:
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
A robot system (1) for learning one or more new semantic relations in a knowledge base (2) of physical skills is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
present (S4) the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3) recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
receive (S5) a confirmation (40) or a refusal (50) from the human user (3) with regard to the presentation (S4) of the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3) is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
For the reasons above, claim 1 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
The additional limitations of the dependent claims contain no additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and are addressed briefly below.
Dependent claim 2 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the obtained knowledge (20) on the physical skill comprises knowledge (20a) on a precondition associated with the physical skill, knowledge (20b) on an action associated with the physical skill, and knowledge (20c) on an effect that results from the precondition and the action amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the obtained knowledge (20) on the physical skill comprises knowledge (20a) on a precondition associated with the physical skill, knowledge (20b) on an action associated with the physical skill, and knowledge (20c) on an effect that results from the precondition and the action amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 2 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 3 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the knowledge (20a) on the precondition associated with the physical skill comprises knowledge on an initial state of one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill and one or more attributes of the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) before the demonstration (10) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the knowledge (20a) on the precondition associated with the physical skill comprises knowledge on an initial state of one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill and one or more attributes of the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) before the demonstration (10) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 3 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 4 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the knowledge (20b) on the action associated with the physical skill comprises knowledge on an action performed during the demonstration (10) with regard to one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the knowledge (20b) on the action associated with the physical skill comprises knowledge on an action performed during the demonstration (10) with regard to one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 4 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 5 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the knowledge (20c) on the effect comprises knowledge on a final state of one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill and one or more attributes of the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) after the demonstration (10) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the knowledge (20c) on the effect comprises knowledge on a final state of one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill and one or more attributes of the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) after the demonstration (10) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 5 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 6 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the system (1) is configured to obtain the knowledge (20b) on the action associated with the physical skill from the human user (3) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. This limitation also amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the system (1) is configured to obtain the knowledge (20b) on the action associated with the physical skill from the human user (3) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. This limitation also amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
For the reasons above, claim 6 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 7 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
using the physical skill in the different context compared to the context of the demonstration (10) comprises using the physical skill with regard to one or more new objects that are similar to one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill, and that are known by the knowledge base (2) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
using the physical skill in the different context compared to the context of the demonstration (10) comprises using the physical skill with regard to one or more new objects that are similar to one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill, and that are known by the knowledge base (2) amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 7 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 8 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the one or more objects (4, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill are subject to an action associated with the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the one or more objects (4, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill are subject to an action associated with the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 8 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 9 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1:
perform similarity considerations on the knowledge base (2) by selecting the one or more new objects (4, 4b') under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator comparing possible actions that could be performed on a selected object). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
The system (1) is configured to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
such that the one or more new objects (4, 4b') have at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, and one or more similar attributes compared to the one or more objects (4, 4b) involved in the 20 demonstration (10) of the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
The system (1) is configured to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
such that the one or more new objects (4, 4b') have at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, and one or more similar attributes compared to the one or more objects (4, 4b) involved in the 20 demonstration (10) of the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 9 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 10 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the one or more objects (4, 4a) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill are used by an action associated with the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the one or more objects (4, 4a) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill are used by an action associated with the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 10 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 11 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1:
perform similarity considerations on the knowledge base (2) by selecting the one or more new objects under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator comparing possible actions that could be performed on a selected object). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
The system (1) is configured to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
such that the one or more new objects have at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, one or more similar attributes, and a similar effect compared to the one or more objects (4, 4a) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
The system (1) is configured to is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
such that the one or more new objects have at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, one or more similar attributes, and a similar effect compared to the one or more objects (4, 4a) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 11 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 12 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
The system (1) is configured to present the hypothesis (30) using a holographic representation of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
The system (1) is configured to present the hypothesis (30) using a holographic representation of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
For the reasons above, claim 12 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 13 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the system (1) is configured to receive (40) the confirmation or the refusal (50) by detecting an acting by the human user (3) on the holographic presentation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the system (1) is configured to receive (40) the confirmation or the refusal (50) by detecting an acting by the human user (3) on the holographic presentation is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
For the reasons above, claim 13 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 14 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the system (1) is configured to receive the confirmation (40) or the refusal (50) by detecting a sorting of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') into categories, and optionally detecting a swiping, by the human user (3), of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the system (1) is configured to receive the confirmation (40) or the refusal (50) by detecting a sorting of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') into categories, and optionally detecting a swiping, by the human user (3), of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
For the reasons above, claim 14 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 15 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1:
extend the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) of the hypothesis (30) for the selected object with the attribute to other objects known by the knowledge base (2) that comprise the attribute under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers a mental process including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper (such as an operator determining that an object could be turned like a door knob or lifted like a cup). If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
output one or more attributes of the one or more new objects recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
detect a selection, by the human user (3), of an object with an attribute of the one or more attributes among the one or more new objects is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
output one or more attributes of the one or more new objects recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
detect a selection, by the human user (3), of an object with an attribute of the one or more attributes among the one or more new objects is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
For the reasons above, claim 15 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 16 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
Visualize at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, one or more similar attributes, and a similar effect of the one or more new objects with regard to the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
Visualize at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, one or more similar attributes, and a similar effect of the one or more new objects with regard to the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
For the reasons above, claim 16 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 17 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
query, from the human user (3), a reason for the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) in response to receiving the confirmation (40) or refusal (50), respectively, and 25 receive the reason from the human user (3), and update the knowledge base (2) according to the received reason recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
query, from the human user (3), a reason for the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) in response to receiving the confirmation (40) or refusal (50), respectively, and 25 receive the reason from the human user (3), and update the knowledge base (2) according to the received reason recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of outputting data (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to displaying a result, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "presenting offers and gathering statistics.", “determining an estimated outcome and setting a price”).
For the reasons above, claim 17 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Dependent claim 19 recites:
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to the same judicial exception (mental process) recited above.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of:
the system is further configured to use at least one tool to at least one object based on the hypothesis in the updated knowledge base amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of:
the system is further configured to use at least one tool to at least one object based on the hypothesis in the updated knowledge base amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
For the reasons above, claim 19 is rejected as being directed to non-patentable subject matter under §101.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system with similar steps to claims 1 and 19, and thus are not patent eligible for the same reasons (see above).
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 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.
Claims 1-11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABDO (Learning manipulation actions from a few demonstrations), in view of ONISHI (US20090289791A1).
Regarding claim 1, ABDO teaches A robot system (1) for learning one or more new semantic relations in a knowledge base (2) of physical skills ([Page 1269, Section III] This work aims at allowing a robot to learn different manipulation actions from a few teacher demonstrations and to then combine them in order to solve more complex tasks than the individual actions.).
obtain (S1) knowledge (20) on a physical skill by observing a demonstration (10), by a human user (3), of the physical skill ([Page 1274, Sec. C] In another experiment, we placed the robot in front of the door and instructed it to keep it fully open while a human repeatedly closed it to different configurations. The robot came up with three different plans depending on the starting state.).
update (S2) the knowledge base (2) with the obtained knowledge (20) ([Page 1272, Section A] The first set of experiments is designed to illustrate how our system can reliably identify the important preconditions and effects of the actions after the initial training phase. The teaching is performed kinesthetically as illustrated in Fig. 1 and the initial training set consisted of 10 demonstrations per action. The robot recorded all features at the beginning and end of each demonstration as described in Sec. IV.)
generate (S3) a hypothesis (30) of using the physical skill in a different context compared to a context of the demonstration (10) by performing similarity considerations on the knowledge base (2) using the obtained knowledge (20) ([Page 1272, Section VII] For a new task, the system generates a PDDL problem description based on the current and goal states and uses the fast downward planner by HELMERT [8] to generate a sequence of actions for the robot to execute. Each step in the plan corresponds to executing a learned action. To physically execute an action, our system first chooses one of the recorded movement primitives corresponding to it.).
However, ABDO is not relied upon to explicitly teach present (S4) the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3), receive (S5) a confirmation (40) or a refusal (50) from the human user (3) with regard to the presentation (S4) of the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3), and update the knowledge base (2) according to the hypothesis (30) in case of receiving the confirmation (40) or discard the hypothesis (30) in case of receiving the refusal (50). On the other hand, ONISHI teaches present (S4) the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3), receive (S5) a confirmation (40) or a refusal (50) from the human user (3) with regard to the presentation (S4) of the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3), and update the knowledge base (2) according to the hypothesis (30) in case of receiving the confirmation (40) or discard the hypothesis (30) in case of receiving the refusal (50) ([0098] Next, the dialogue display unit 37 displays a confirmation dialogue for inquiring whether or not the interpolation area may be added to the safety area (step S105). Upon an approval of the user for the addition of the interpolation area after the display of the confirmation dialogue (step S106), the area setting update unit 34 updates the area setting information in the area setting recording unit 35 (step S107). The examiner notes that ABDO and ONISHI are both directed to automation and robotics and are thus considered to be reasonably analogous. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ABDO’s learning process to incorporate present (S4) the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3), receive (S5) a confirmation (40) or a refusal (50) from the human user (3) with regard to the presentation (S4) of the hypothesis (30) to the human user (3), and update the knowledge base (2) according to the hypothesis (30) in case of receiving the confirmation (40) or discard the hypothesis (30) in case of receiving the refusal as taught by ONISHI [0098] in order to modify a safety zone [0095]).
Regarding claim 2, ABDO teaches the obtained knowledge (20) on the physical skill comprises knowledge (20a) on a precondition associated with the physical skill, knowledge (20b) on an action associated with the physical skill, and knowledge (20c) on an effect that results from the precondition and the action ([Page 1272, Section VIII.A.1] Door Opening Scenario: In this set of experiments, we demonstrated to the robot how it can open a door using 5 simple actions: reaching the handle, turning the handle to unlatch the door, pulling the door from its handle, moving the gripper to the edge of the door, and pushing the door to open it completely. The position of the handle is detected via a checkerboard pattern and the opening angle of the edge of the door was measured using the robot’s laser sensor. As an example, the preconditions learned for pulling the door are: the door is partially open; the handle is visible; the gripper is closed and in a fixed (grasping) pose relative to it. For the effects: the handle is not visible after pulling the door; the door edge and the gripper relative to the robot are in a consistent position; the door is still partially open. For the sake of brevity, only a small subset of the results can be presented here.).
Regarding claim 3, ABDO teaches the knowledge (20a) on the precondition associated with the physical skill comprises knowledge on an initial state of one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill and one or more attributes of the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) before the demonstration (10) ([Page 1272, Section VIII.A.1] Door Opening Scenario: In this set of experiments, we demonstrated to the robot how it can open a door using 5 simple actions: reaching the handle, turning the handle to unlatch the door, pulling the door from its handle, moving the gripper to the edge of the door, and pushing the door to open it completely. The position of the handle is detected via a checkerboard pattern and the opening angle of the edge of the door was measured using the robot’s laser sensor. As an example, the preconditions learned for pulling the door are: the door is partially open; the handle is visible; the gripper is closed and in a fixed (grasping) pose relative to it. For the effects: the handle is not visible after pulling the door; the door edge and the gripper relative to the robot are in a consistent position; the door is still partially open. For the sake of brevity, only a small subset of the results can be presented here. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that obtains knowledge from a human demonstration about the initial state of a door, about the physical action to perform on the door, and an attribute of the door).
Regarding claim 4, ABDO teaches the knowledge (20b) on the action associated with the physical skill comprises knowledge on an action performed during the demonstration (10) with regard to one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill ([Page 1272, Section VIII.A.1] Door Opening Scenario: In this set of experiments, we demonstrated to the robot how it can open a door using 5 simple actions: reaching the handle, turning the handle to unlatch the door, pulling the door from its handle, moving the gripper to the edge of the door, and pushing the door to open it completely. The position of the handle is detected via a checkerboard pattern and the opening angle of the edge of the door was measured using the robot’s laser sensor. As an example, the preconditions learned for pulling the door are: the door is partially open; the handle is visible; the gripper is closed and in a fixed (grasping) pose relative to it. For the effects: the handle is not visible after pulling the door; the door edge and the gripper relative to the robot are in a consistent position; the door is still partially open. For the sake of brevity, only a small subset of the results can be presented here. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that obtains knowledge from a human demonstration about opening a door).
Regarding claim 5, ABDO teaches the knowledge (20c) on the effect comprises knowledge on a final state of one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill and one or more attributes of the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) after the demonstration (10) ([Page 1272, Section VIII.A.1] Door Opening Scenario: In this set of experiments, we demonstrated to the robot how it can open a door using 5 simple actions: reaching the handle, turning the handle to unlatch the door, pulling the door from its handle, moving the gripper to the edge of the door, and pushing the door to open it completely. The position of the handle is detected via a checkerboard pattern and the opening angle of the edge of the door was measured using the robot’s laser sensor. As an example, the preconditions learned for pulling the door are: the door is partially open; the handle is visible; the gripper is closed and in a fixed (grasping) pose relative to it. For the effects: the handle is not visible after pulling the door; the door edge and the gripper relative to the robot are in a consistent position; the door is still partially open. For the sake of brevity, only a small subset of the results can be presented here. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that obtains knowledge from a human demonstration about opening a door by knowing the position of the door handle and the position of the door itself in order to know when and how to open the door with the gripper).
Regarding claim 6, ABDO teaches the system (1) is configured to obtain the knowledge (20b) on the action associated with the physical skill from the human user (3) ([Page 1272, Section VIII.A.1] Door Opening Scenario: In this set of experiments, we demonstrated to the robot how it can open a door using 5 simple actions: reaching the handle, turning the handle to unlatch the door, pulling the door from its handle, moving the gripper to the edge of the door, and pushing the door to open it completely. The position of the handle is detected via a checkerboard pattern and the opening angle of the edge of the door was measured using the robot’s laser sensor. As an example, the preconditions learned for pulling the door are: the door is partially open; the handle is visible; the gripper is closed and in a fixed (grasping) pose relative to it. For the effects: the handle is not visible after pulling the door; the door edge and the gripper relative to the robot are in a consistent position; the door is still partially open. For the sake of brevity, only a small subset of the results can be presented here. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that obtains knowledge from a human demonstration about opening a door).
Regarding claim 7, ABDO teaches using the physical skill in the different context compared to the context of the demonstration (10) comprises using the physical skill with regard to one or more new objects that are similar to one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill, and that are known by the knowledge base (2) ([Page 1274, Section C] This set of experiments is designed to show how the robot can use the learned actions to solve tasks that have not been demonstrated beforehand. In one experiment, we instructed the robot to stack three blocks in a specific order using the learned pick-and-place actions. The robot was always able to come up with a valid plan to the goal state. To execute each step, it selects a DMP learned during the demonstrations and used it to get to a desired gripper goal pose. Fig. 3 depicts the plan execution, and a video of this experiment is available under the URL above. In another experiment, we placed the robot in front of the door and instructed it to keep it fully open while a human repeatedly closed it to different configurations.).
Regarding claim 8, ABDO teaches the one or more objects (4, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill are subject to an action associated with the physical skill. ([Page 1274, Section C] In another experiment, we placed the robot in front of the door and instructed it to keep it fully open while a human repeatedly closed it to different configurations. The robot came up with three different plans depending on the starting state. If the door is completely closed, our robot needs to carry out the following actions: reachHandle; graspHandle; turnHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door latch was not locked, it is sufficient to execute: reachHandle; graspHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door is already partially open but the robot does not see the handle, the plan was: moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. Some of these actions are visible in parts of Fig. 5. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that learned to open a door from different positions by using the door opening skill it learned from a human demonstration. The opening is done by turning the door handle).
Regarding claim 9, ABDO teaches the system (1) is configured to perform similarity considerations on the knowledge base (2) by selecting the one or more new objects (4, 4b') such that the one or more new objects (4, 4b') have at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, and one or more similar attributes compared to the one or more objects (4, 4b) involved in the 20 demonstration (10) of the physical skill. ([Page 1274, Section C] In another experiment, we placed the robot in front of the door and instructed it to keep it fully open while a human repeatedly closed it to different configurations. The robot came up with three different plans depending on the starting state. If the door is completely closed, our robot needs to carry out the following actions: reachHandle; graspHandle; turnHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door latch was not locked, it is sufficient to execute: reachHandle; graspHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door is already partially open but the robot does not see the handle, the plan was: moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. Some of these actions are visible in parts of Fig. 5. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that learned to open a door from different positions by using a similar learned skill such as the door opening skill it learned from a human demonstration.).
Regarding claim 10, ABDO teaches the one or more objects (4, 4a) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill are used by an action associated with the physical skill. ([Page 1274, Section C] In another experiment, we placed the robot in front of the door and instructed it to keep it fully open while a human repeatedly closed it to different configurations. The robot came up with three different plans depending on the starting state. If the door is completely closed, our robot needs to carry out the following actions: reachHandle; graspHandle; turnHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door latch was not locked, it is sufficient to execute: reachHandle; graspHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door is already partially open but the robot does not see the handle, the plan was: moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. Some of these actions are visible in parts of Fig. 5.. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that learned to open a door from different positions by using the door opening skill it learned from a human demonstration. The opening is done by turning the door handle).
Regarding claim 11, ABDO teaches the system (1) is configured to perform similarity considerations on the knowledge base (2) by selecting the one or more new objects such that the one or more new objects have at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, one or more similar attributes, and a similar effect compared to the one or more objects (4, 4a) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill. ([Page 1274, Section C] In another experiment, we placed the robot in front of the door and instructed it to keep it fully open while a human repeatedly closed it to different configurations. The robot came up with three different plans depending on the starting state. If the door is completely closed, our robot needs to carry out the following actions: reachHandle; graspHandle; turnHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door latch was not locked, it is sufficient to execute: reachHandle; graspHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door is already partially open but the robot does not see the handle, the plan was: moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. Some of these actions are visible in parts of Fig. 5. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that learned to open a door from different positions by using a similar learned skill such as the door opening skill it learned from a human demonstration.).
Regarding claim 19, ABDO teaches the system is further configured to use at least one tool to at least one object based on the hypothesis in the updated knowledge base. ([Page 1274, Section C] In another experiment, we placed the robot in front of the door and instructed it to keep it fully open while a human repeatedly closed it to different configurations. The robot came up with three different plans depending on the starting state. If the door is completely closed, our robot needs to carry out the following actions: reachHandle; graspHandle; turnHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door latch was not locked, it is sufficient to execute: reachHandle; graspHandle; pullDoor; releaseHandle; moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. If the door is already partially open but the robot does not see the handle, the plan was: moveArmToInnerSide; pushDoor. Some of these actions are visible in parts of Fig. 5. The examiner notes that ABDO teaches a robot that uses a gripper to grip and move an object such as a door handle.).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 based upon the same rationale as claims 1 and 19 respectively as they are the method claims corresponding to the system claims.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABDO (Learning manipulation actions from a few demonstrations), in view of ONISHI (US20090289791A1), further in view of LUEBBERS (ARC-LfD Using Augmented Reality for Interactive Long-Term Robot Skill Maintenance via Constrained Learning from Demonstration - 2021).
Regarding claim 12, ABDO teaches The robot system (1) according to claim 7, however, ABDO is not relied upon to explicitly teach the system (1) is configured to present the hypothesis (30) using a holographic representation of the one or more new objects (4, 4b'). On the other hand, LUEBBERS teaches the system (1) is configured to present the hypothesis (30) using a holographic representation of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') ([3797, Section IV] Users wearing the HoloLens are able to see holographic visualizations of relevant keyframes and constraints projected onto the robot's workspace. The examiner notes that ABDO and LUEBBERS are both directed to automation and robotics and are thus considered to be reasonably analogous. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ABDO’s teacher feedback process to incorporate the system (1) is configured to present the hypothesis (30) using a holographic representation of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') as taught by LUEBBERS [3797, Section IV] in order to interact with a user [3797, Section IV]).
Regarding claim 13, ABDO teaches The robot system (1) according to claim 12, however, ABDO is not relied upon to explicitly teach the system (1) is configured to receive (40) the confirmation or the refusal (50) by detecting an acting by the human user (3) on the holographic presentation. On the other hand, LUEBBERS teaches the system (1) is configured to receive (40) the confirmation or the refusal (50) by detecting an acting by the human user (3) on the holographic presentation ([3797, Section IV] User interaction is achieved through performing pinching gestures known as air taps on these visualizations and on menu buttons pinned above the robot (see Fig. 1). The examiner notes that ABDO and LUEBBERS are both directed to automation and robotics and are thus considered to be reasonably analogous. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ABDO’s teacher feedback process to incorporate the system (1) is configured to receive (40) the confirmation or the refusal (50) by detecting an acting by the human user (3) on the holographic presentation as taught by LUEBBERS [3797, Section IV] in order to interact with a user [3797, Section IV]).
Regarding claim 14, ABDO teaches The robot system (1) according to claim 12, however, ABDO is not relied upon to explicitly teach the system (1) is configured to receive the confirmation (40) or the refusal (50) by detecting a sorting of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') into categories, and optionally detecting a swiping, by the human user (3), of the one or more new objects (4, 4b'). On the other hand, LUEBBERS teaches the system (1) is configured to receive the confirmation (40) or the refusal (50) by detecting a sorting of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') into categories, and optionally detecting a swiping, by the human user (3), of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') ([3797, Section IV] User interaction is achieved through performing pinching gestures known as air taps on these visualizations and on menu buttons pinned above the robot (see Fig. 1). The examiner notes that ABDO and LUEBBERS are both directed to automation and robotics and are thus considered to be reasonably analogous. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ABDO’s teacher feedback process to incorporate the system (1) is configured to receive the confirmation (40) or the refusal (50) by detecting a sorting of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') into categories, and optionally detecting a swiping, by the human user (3), of the one or more new objects (4, 4b') as taught by LUEBBERS [3797, Section IV] in order to interact with a user [3797, Section IV]).
Regarding claim 15, ABDO teaches The robot system (1) according to claim 7, however, ABDO is not relied upon to explicitly teach output one or more attributes of the one or more new objects, detect a selection, by the human user (3), of an object with an attribute of the one or more attributes among the one or more new objects, and extend the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) of the hypothesis (30) for the selected object with the attribute to other objects known by the knowledge base (2) that comprise the attribute. On the other hand, LUEBBERS teaches output one or more attributes of the one or more new objects, detect a selection, by the human user (3), of an object with an attribute of the one or more attributes among the one or more new objects, and extend the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) of the hypothesis (30) for the selected object with the attribute to other objects known by the knowledge base (2) that comprise the attribute ([3798, Fig. 5] Users can customize constraints from templates via the AR interface. After selecting a height (top left), orientation (top right), or over-under (bottom left) constraint, they edit its parameters and see the corresponding visualization update in real-time. Once satisfied, they can apply the newly edited constraint to the model by selecting it from the application menu (bottom right), and by selecting which keyframes the constraint should apply to. After this process, they will send a request to the robot to rebuild and revisualize the model using any new constraints, and evaluate whether the robot has correctly learned the skill. The examiner notes that LUEBBERS teaches a system that displays orientation (attribute), accepts the user’s selection regarding the orientation attribute, and applies the change to the model (extending the confirmation). The examiner also notes that ABDO and LUEBBERS are both directed to automation and robotics and are thus considered to be reasonably analogous. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ABDO’s teacher feedback process to incorporate output one or more attributes of the one or more new objects, detect a selection, by the human user (3), of an object with an attribute of the one or more attributes among the one or more new objects, and extend the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) of the hypothesis (30) for the selected object with the attribute to other objects known by the knowledge base (2) that comprise the attribute as taught by LUEBBERS [3798, Fig. 5] in order to interact with a user [3797, Section IV]).
Regarding claim 16, ABDO teaches The robot system (1) according to claim 7, however, ABDO is not relied upon to explicitly teach Visualize at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, one or more similar attributes, and a similar effect of the one or more new objects with regard to the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill. On the other hand, LUEBBERS teaches Visualize at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, one or more similar attributes, and a similar effect of the one or more new objects with regard to the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill ([3798, Fig. 5] Users can customize constraints from templates via the AR interface. After selecting a height (top left), orientation (top right), or over-under (bottom left) constraint, they edit its parameters and see the corresponding visualization update in real-time. Once satisfied, they can apply the newly edited constraint to the model by selecting it from the application menu (bottom right), and by selecting which keyframes the constraint should apply to. After this process, they will send a request to the robot to rebuild and revisualize the model using any new constraints, and evaluate whether the robot has correctly learned the skill. The examiner notes that LUEBBERS teaches a system that allows users to customize constraints from templates via the AR interface (visualize an attribute). The examiner also notes that ABDO and LUEBBERS are both directed to automation and robotics and are thus considered to be reasonably analogous. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ABDO’s teacher feedback process to incorporate Visualize at least one of a semantic similarity, a physical similarity, one or more similar attributes, and a similar effect of the one or more new objects with regard to the one or more objects (4, 4a, 4b) involved in the demonstration (10) of the physical skill as taught by LUEBBERS [3798, Fig. 5] in order to interact with a user [3797, Section IV]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ABDO (Learning manipulation actions from a few demonstrations), in view of ONISHI (US20090289791A1), further in view of BHAGI (US20220292196A1).
Regarding claim 17, ABDO teaches The robot system (1) according to claim 1, however, ABDO is not relied upon to explicitly teach query, from the human user (3), a reason for the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) in response to receiving the confirmation (40) or refusal (50), respectively, and 25 receive the reason from the human user (3), and update the knowledge base (2) according to the received reason. On the other hand, BHAGI teaches query, from the human user (3), a reason for the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) in response to receiving the confirmation (40) or refusal (50), respectively, and 25 receive the reason from the human user (3), and update the knowledge base (2) according to the received reason ([0412] The prompt may further request that the user provides a reason for clearing the anomaly. The benefit of displaying the prompt is that it records the reason for the anomaly clearance. The examiner notes that BHAGI teaches requesting a user to provide a reason for refusing or accepting a hypothesis and updating a database of the reason. The examiner also notes that ABDO and BHAGI are both directed to machine learning and are thus considered to be reasonably analogous. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ABDO’s teacher feedback process to incorporate query, from the human user (3), a reason for the confirmation (40) or refusal (50) in response to receiving the confirmation (40) or refusal (50), respectively, and 25 receive the reason from the human user (3), and update the knowledge base (2) according to the received reason as taught by BHAGI [0412] in order to record the reason for the anomaly clearance [0412]).
Conclusion
The following reference have been determined to be related to the application, but were not applied in any specific rejection. They are nonetheless listed below for reference.
JANG (US 2020/0134505 Al)
“JANG teaches a method for generating learning data by an agent performing an identical or similar task to a task of the robot”
FENIELLO (US 2015/0331416 Al)
“FENIELLO teaches a method to synthesize a robotic task program based on received examples of repositioning tasks”
CARLOS (US 2024/0198938 Al)
“CARLOS teaches a method for automated vehicle action generation”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAMCY ALGHAZZY whose telephone number is (571)272-8824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9AM and 6PM.
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, OMAR FERNANDEZ RIVAS can be reached on (571)272-2589. 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.
/SHAMCY ALGHAZZY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights