DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are pending.
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 limitations are: “Communication Module that bridges ...”, “Intelligent Perception Module that analyzes ...”, “Trajectory Planning Module that translates ...”, and “Navigation Module that translates ...” in claim 1.
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 Objections
Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 lines 2-3: “a Communication Module that bridges a connection between a camera and a computer, receiving an image stream;” should be changed to read “a Communication Module that bridges a connection between a camera and a computer, and receives an image stream;”.
Claim 1 lines 3-4: “an Intelligent Perception Module that analyzes the image stream, employing an AI model to detect the cargo vehicle, extract feature points” should be changed to read “an Intelligent Perception Module that analyzes the image stream, employs an artificial intelligence (AI) model to detect the cargo vehicle, and extracts feature points”.
Claim 1 line 4-7: “a Trajectory Planning Module that translates information between coordinate systems and uses extracted data to determine a pose of the cargo vehicle relative to the robot and camera, then generating a planned trajectory that comprises an optimal collision-free path to reach the cargo vehicle, prioritizing efficiency and safety;” should be changed to read “a Trajectory Planning Module that translates information between coordinate systems , uses extracted data to determine a pose of the cargo vehicle relative to the robot and -the camera, and generates a planned trajectory that comprises an optimal collision-free path to reach the cargo vehicle, prioritizing efficiency and safety;”.
Claim 1, 3rd paragraph: “An artificial intelligence model is trained” should be changed to read “The AI model is trained”; “from camera” should be changed to read “from the camera”; “The camera parameters is also offline calibrated” should be changed to read “the camera parameters are also offline calibrated”; and “The AI model” should be changed to read “the AI model”.
Claim 1: first recitation of “RC coordinate system” should be changed to read “roller cart (RC) coordinate system”.
Claim 1, line 1 of 3rd paragraph: “An artificial intelligence model” should be changed to read “the AI model”.
Claim 1, last paragraph of Step 3: “combining segmented regions and detected to associate features ...” appears to be an incomplete sentence as it is unclear what “detected” refers to.
Claim 1, 2nd paragraph of Step 4: “the robot coordinate system” should be changed to read “a robot coordinate system”; first recitation of “the cargo cart coordinate system” should be changed to read “a cargo cart coordinate system”; “the camera coordinate system” should be changed to read a camera coordinate system”.
Claims 2-3: “the user” should be changed to read “a user”.
Claim 6 line 2: “in which if an obstacle” should be changed to read “in which when an obstacle”.
Claim 6 line 3: “the robot will issue and warning and stop” should be changed to read “the robot issues a warning and stops”.
Claim 7 line 2: “in which a nonlinear controller is follows” should be changed to read “in which a nonlinear controller follows” or “in which a nonlinear controller is to follow”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 recite both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. Thus, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because it creates a confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A method and system for automatically identifying and controlling a robot to crawl under a cargo vehicle, including the following components...” It is unclear whether the phrase “including the following components” refers to components of the system, the robot, or the cargo vehicle.
Claim 1 recites “the deep learning model” under Step 2. It is unclear whether the deep learning model is the same as the AI model in Step 1 or a different model. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites, in 3rd paragraph of Step 4, the limitation “A is a camera intrinsic matrix that was found in step 1.” However, step 1 in the claim does not appear to disclose any details regarding a determination of a camera intrinsic matrix. Thus, the metes and bounds of the camera intrinsic matrix cannot be ascertained. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “to associate features with the specific cargo cart” in the last paragraph of Step 3. It is unclear whether the associated features refer to the at least four distinct features that are identified, or the missing features as recited in the same paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, in the last sentence of 2nd paragraph under Step 1, recites the limitation “... are saved and used for the next steps”. It is unclear which steps are included in the “next steps” as this can be interpreted to be all of the steps 2-5 or any one of the steps 2-5. Therefore, this limitation renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “a 2D camera”. It is unclear whether the 2D camera is the same camera as recited in claim 1 or a different camera. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the calculation method”. It is unclear what the calculation method refers to as there are multiple calculations being implemented in claim 1, including at least image processing in Steps 2 and 3, calculation of distance and direction of the cargo cart in Step 4, and calculation of a movement trajectory in Step 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the robot only considers the reference point is the point on the trajectory closest to it in space.” It is unclear what “it” in the limitation refers to as this can be interpreted as the trajectory, the reference point, or another point. This limitation renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the initial analysis”. It is unclear what the initial analysis refers to as this can be interpreted to be the image analysis in Step 2 or the deep learning analysis in Steps 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 contains the trademark/trade name Yolo v5. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a specialized cargo cart detection model and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHI Q BUI whose telephone number is (571)272-3962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, KHOI TRAN can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/NHI Q BUI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3656