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 .
Response to Remarks
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims provided in the Office Action dated 09/18/2025 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Specification
In light of Applicant’s clear statement on Page 16 of the Remarks filed 12/01/2025 that “a precautionary occlusion is an occlusion which is introduced to the motion planning model as a precautionary measure”, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s remarks are considered and only some found persuasive.
As provided previously and again below, ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)”. Applicant’s remarks explicitly state “those limitations should be interpreted as the structure … “does” or “performs” the recited action”. The claims as presently constructed, per the preamble of the independent claim (Claim 91), such that they are directed towards a system, not a method. The limitations continue to be interpreted as functional limitations of the associated structure as indicated below.
“processor-based”, in light of Applicant’s remarks on Page 17 are interpreted instead as indicating an inherent limitation of the system comprising “one or more processors” to which the “processor-based” items are “based”. Consequently, interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments and remarks have resolved some but not all issues. Those remaining which were not addressed by argument and/or amendment in any manner are repeated, and those which are addressed by arguments not found persuasive are addressed below.
Regarding Claims 86 and 102, Applicant’s argument with respect to “generat(es/ing) a … motion plan that reduces at least one of a stoppage, slowdown, or introdyuction of a precautionary occlusion” is found unpersuasive.
Applicant first states “The inventive approach produces improvements in motion planning and robot control by generating motion plans which reduce at least one of a stoppage, slowdown, or introduction of a precautionary occlusion”. This statement merely indicates that the “approach” itself should produce these results. The next statement reiterates this fact (“These rejected dependent claims specify the types of improvements that are realized via these approaches”). Applicant then states “Rather than rendering the boundaries of claim scope unclear, these dependent claims provide further clarity to scope since they specify the specific aspects of motion planning via which the improvements are realized” (emphasis added). This statement seems wholly contradictory to the previous statements. As provided by Applicant, the “claims specify … the improvements” rather than “the specific aspects of motion planning” by which they “are realized”. Consequently, Applicant’s statements actually support the Examiner’s assessment.
As provided by the Applicant, these items are merely the desired and expected result of performing the motion planning and do not “specify” any “specific aspects of motion planning”.
Applicant’s next argument relies on limitations not provided in the claim, namely “relative to motion planning without performing the recited acts”.
Applicant’s next argument appears to agree rather than disagree with Examiner. Applicant states the limitation is “at most … a relative limitation”. There is no basis by which to compare this “relative” limitation. See the above statement of “relative to motion planning without performing the recited acts” which again is not provided for in the claims. Applicant appears to be relying on a limitation not found in the claims to bound this “relative” or in other words “subjective” limitation.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 88 and 104, the claims recite the limitation “determin(ing/e) whether the human is acting consistently with the predicted behavior”. In light of Applicant’s argument, the limitation has instead been interpreted as simply being particularly broad. In specific, per Page 19 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 12/01/2025 “any amount of deviation” from “the predicted behavior” qualifies as not “acting consistently”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments appear to generally rely on asserting the claims to be narrower than claimed. While applicant may consider these as “trivializing” the limitations (See “trivial case” of Page 23 of Applicant’s Remarks), that statement only reflects on the construction of the claim limitations. Applicant appears to have intentionally claimed, by their own arguments, a system designed to be broadly applicable. Consequently, the claims are similarly especially broad. A non-exhaustive list of examples include:
The nature of the “one or more robots” or “first robot” are never claimed with any particularity. They may take any form and furthermore be represented in the process in any manner of ways. Many C-space teaching examples in the literature will use two-links, single shapes like triangles or squares, or even single points to represent the robot.
The number of “edges”, “nodes”, or even most of the aspects of the “motion planning graph” are not claimed with any particularity. The most required is the minimum under BRI, which is two for a “plurality”.
The safety rules are not specified in any manner. Applicant’s statement of “by definition” does not appear supported by the specification including cited [0025] and appears to merely be an attempt to incorporate features into the limitations not presently claimed.
The generation of an executable motion plan is not claimed with particularity. More specifically, the nature of “executable”, “motion plan”, or “executable motion plan” are not claimed with any particularity. Furthermore, in light of Claim 90 and the distinction between steps 812 and 814 as disclosed (see for example Figure 8) it is clear that “generation” of an “executable motion plan” does not mean “execution” of a “motion plan”. Consequently, there is a clear gap between the two with no clear recitation of what occurs between generation and execution, and again what generation entails. A significant number of even computer automated robot motion planners generate plans/instructions at what are considered a “high-level” or even in “natural language” similar to basic pseudocode that a human might readily create such as “go to the table, find the apple, grasp the apple” etc. and definitely do not require the level of complexity argued.
Relatedly and furthermore, statements of what a human may or may not normally do are not of relevancy to what a human can or cannot do. Additionally, humans regularly assign weights in assessments and this appears to be a baseless arguments. See for example Sorin wherein weights are clearly contemplated by the inventors to be applied, or any variety of assessment methodologies wherein a particular category is assigned a particular weight to an overall score or similar.
In light of the above, Applicant’s arguments do not appear persuasive. The claim limitations are claimed so broadly as to readily fall within the capacity of a human to perform with pen and paper, and furthermore, it appears clear from the disclosure that the technical improvement, particularly with respect to the claimed features is not solely achieved with respect to generation (step 812 of Figure 8) but execution (step 812 of Figure 8). MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) which relates recites “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification” (emphasis added). The long list of recited features in Pages 26 – 29 generally do not appear reflected in the claims, similar to the above discussion of arguing limitations not found within the claims. For example, there are no recitations of “multiple COTS sensors” or “(FMEA) processes or techniques” and again there is no actual execution or other implementation of the data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Based on Applicant’s recitations on Pages 31 – 33, the limitations that appears to be argued are that of:
“for two or more of the edges of the first motion planning graph, determining whether a respective transition represented by the respective edge in the first motion planning graph will violate one or more safety rules of a set of safety monitoring rules of a processor- based workcell safety system that monitors an environment in which at least the first robot will operate”
based on Applicant quoting the language of the claim and of the rejection related thereto on Page 31 and 32 with respect to Sorin, and Sorin in combination with Lalonde, as well as:
“for each of the two or more edges of the first motion planning graph, setting a cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph based at least in part on both: i) the collision assessment and ii) the determination of whether a respective transition represented by the respective edge in the motion plan graph will violate one or more safety rules of the set of safety monitoring rules of the processor-based workcell safety system”
based on Applicant quoting the language of the claim and of the rejection related thereto at the top of Page 32 with respect to Sorin.
Applicant’s arguments appear to begin on Page 33 with the paragraph “as defined”.
With respect to this argument reciting Applicant’s disclosure indicating a stated definition (“as defined in the pending application” on Page 33):
First, the definition is not actually stated as a definition, let alone a special definition. Applicant’s arguments furthermore do not make clear if they are establishing a special definition disavowing the plain meaning of the term (MPEP 2111.01(IV)(B) relates).
Second, the citation does not appear to be of a particular claim term but generally to be vaguely extensive of any limitation using the verb determine in some form in a particular context, which is more general and not a specific term. For example, the disclosure does not state “a collision determination means …”, “determining whether a collision will occur means …”, or similar, but instead “when used in the context of” which is not a particular “word or expression” (definition of “term” from Merriam-Webster Dictionary accessed 2/18/2026). The MPEP makes clear setting definitions of terms, not of general concepts. MPEP 2111.01(IV) relates.
Third, it is unclear the particular argument being made. As noted above, the limitations that appear argued are with respect to “determining whether a respective transition … will violate one or more safety rules” and “setting a cost” based on an already performed “collision assessment” and the “determination” just indicated. However, the “as defined” recitation of the disclosure from [0039] of US 20240091944 A1 is for “determining … when used in the context of whether a collision will occur or result”. These limitations are not of said context.
The only relevancy Examiner can find is if Applicant is arguing the same context applies to these limitations as well. However, this would appear to directly contradict Applicant’s later argument on Page 34, that of the “both” limitation being “redundant”, and furthermore does not appear supported and appears to attempt to apply a definition to the prior art not required by the claim language.
Fourth, if the relevancy is related to the following paragraph which may be a separate argument indicating what Applicant believes Sorin to teach or not teach, the cited portion would appear to contradict that argument as well. [0039] of US 20240091944 A1 clearly aligns with Applicant’s own paraphrasing of what Sorin does. [0039] states “e.g. another potion of the robot, a portion of another robot” etc. and the next paragraph states “another portion of the robot or some other obstacle”.
Finally, Sorin is not relied upon alone for the “safety rules” which are assessed. The rejection is of Sorin and Lalonde as Applicant’s recitation of the Office Action indicates. As stated clearly in 72. of the previous Office Action “multiple different safety (monitoring) rules might be used/applied” and as demonstrated in 73. include “obstacle distance cost” which is “determining how close the robot is to an object” (See Page 33 of Applicant’s Remarks), and as Applicant indicates this is not disclosed in Sorin would mean it is yet another criteria regardless of the mutual exclusivity discussion.
Consequently, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, and related to all of the arguments, Examiner could find no arguments made with respect to Lalonde, let alone Sorin in combination with Lalonde, only of Sorin and Steder. Thus there appears to be a clear gap in the arguments, particularly as Lalonde is relied upon with respect to at least some of the recited limitations.
With respect to the argument in the next paragraph which paraphrases Sorin and concludes with the statement “There is no reason to interpret Sorin as teaching anything more than what it does teach, collision detection and probability of collision”:
Again, the particular argument(s) being made are not clear. Applicant should specifically point out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, making clear what language in particular is being argued.
Based on the statements generally being directed towards “collision detection” and the “hence” statement which only appears to make sense if Applicant is arguing that collision assessment is not read upon, it is believed that Applicant may be indicating that Applicant finds Sorin does not read on the collision assessment limitation. However, said limitation was not among those recited leading up to Applicant’s apparent arguments so it is unclear.
Regardless, the first item of substance is Applicant’s statement that Sorin “does not appear capable of determining how close the robot is to an object”. However, there is no limitation related to proximity, closeness, etc. as argued in any limitations of the independent claims, let alone those appeared argued. Consequently, this argument appears reliant on features not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The second item of substance relates to the statement “Sorin does not appear to teach using any other criteria for collision detection”. However, the relevance of said statement is unclear. The arguments do not appear to discuss any language relevant to the nature of “collision assessment”, the nature of collision assessment not being claimed with “criteria”, nor does it appear relevant to the actually recited limitations as said limitations do not actually specify what the “one or more safety rules of a set of safety monitoring rules” are.
With respect to Applicant’s next paragraph, again the arguments being made are unclear. Applicant appears to potentially transition mid-paragraph between arguments being made. The paragraph appears to open with the argument that “there are two distinct systems involved”. This argument appears reliant on features not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, the plain meaning of the terms involved in the claims of “processor-based motion planner” and “processor-based workcell safety system” do not require any particular distinctness between the two items. Computer-implemented and involved technologies do not carry any inherent distinction between two functions under their plain meaning without the distinctness of systems being clearly and explicitly recited in the limitations of the claims such as through recitation of clear structural differences. Typically where such distinction is claimed, functionalities are grouped and where relevant, the particular distribution of structures with respect to these functions are explicitly claimed (e.g. limitations of a server being configured to perform a first function separate from a controller networked therewith, the controller being configured to perform a different, second function, etc.).
Furthermore, cited [0025] of US 20240091944 A1 provides no actual “definition” or definitions as argued, nor again does this appear to be establishing a special definition disavowing the plain meaning of any terms (MPEP 2111.01(IV)(B) relates).
Examiner acknowledges that Applicant’s disclosed approach in a preferred embodiment may not be specific to a certain safety system (see final sentence), but said statement does not appear relevant to the language of the claims themself. The claims do not particularly define the nature of the safety system to any other system.
The nature of the argument also appears to potentially transition to a focus on the “both” statement in the limitations, which is not necessarily relevant however to distinctness of systems as appears argued in the opening of the paragraph. One system may perform one or more evaluations and use said one or more evaluations. There is no inherent requirement that they be performed on separate systems. The argument intended may be that indicated in the following paragraph of mutual exclusivity.
The next paragraph beginning on Page 34 of the Remarks appears to be arguing the “mutually exclusive” discussion provided in Examiner’s notes in the rejection.
First, the rejection is not reliant on this interpretation. The note serves, among the other provided items, to make clear the interpretation taken by the Examiner and illustrate how broad the claim language is in the interest of furthering compact prosecution. See for example the combination with Lalonde, in particular 72. – 74. wherein Examiner made clear that the combination was to cover a plurality of safety rules and furthermore to provide “two additional means/checks of increasing safety of the system of Sorin”. Also see, as argued by Applicant in the arguments, Sorin alone can be considered as performing two determinations/assessments (collision, and probability of collision, see Page 33 of Applicant’s Remarks).
Second, Applicant’s argument presumes a limitation not claimed. Namely that of “1) separately assess collision and safety rule violations”. The claims do not presently provide such a limitation. There is nothing inherently mutually exclusive of the “collision assessment” and “determining” of safety violations as presently constructed. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily consider a collision assessment as a form of safety assessment, even as evidenced by the body of references indicated as incorporated by reference in the final paragraph of Applicant’s specification. See for example [0068] of Sorin which is one reference of the family of said references “The collision detection module 310 calculates which motions are safe and upon completion sends the results to the shortest path module 320 (without further host-device communication). The collision detection module 310 modifies the planning graph accordingly by eliminating edges in collision. The shortest path module 320 then runs and returns a path, P, to the host”. Finally, Applicant’s specification without reference to incorporated references is vague with respect to safety rules and never appears to explicitly state that they must be distinct. Applicant’s arguments furthermore insist upon the flexibility of the system involved making it abundantly clear that the safety rules, without further claimed limitation, are open to effectively any reasonably construed item, wherein collision is one of the most commonly considered safety items for bodies in motion, let alone robotics.
Third, while it may appear to render the claim redundant as presently claimed, there is no requirement that a claim not appear redundant. It is common for a level of redundancy, triviality, or similar to exist in a set of claim limitations until later limitations found in the same or dependent claims leverage the particular language to further limit the claims. For example, the recitation of a first and second component wherein at first there is no statement that they are or are not the same, but later are claimed as different or the same. There is no other limitation that suggests, let alone requires, that the two items be distinct and separate, and one of ordinary skill in the art would readily consider a collision assessment as a form of safety assessment.
Effectively, the claims are presently constructed especially broad such that a variety of interpretations might be taken to read on them. Furthermore, the phrase “both” is not especially particular. As another example, if A is based on B which is based on C, A is based on “both” A and C. Similarly, one might provide that as presently claimed in the “comprising” structured independent claims that the recitation of “at least in part” of “based at least in part on both” is redundant as “based on” would not be exclusive of any other item, however this structure does not create a presumption of further limitation.
With respect to the arguments regarding Steder:
First, Applicant does not address the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation in question, and relatedly does not address the rejection of just Sorin in combination with Lalonde. As indicated in 104. of the previous Office Action, the language of the claims is particularly broad with no particular definition or limitation of what it actually means to account for granularity being provided. Thus, no argument is provided with respect to just the rejection under Sorin in view of Lalonde.
Second, with respect to the alternative rejection relying on Steder, the rejection appears to clearly align with Applicant’s most clear explanation of what this limitation might even mean. Compare the recitations of Steder with [0147] of US 20240091944 A1. Applicant appears to be using a different meaning of “account for the granularity” even than disclosed in the originally filed disclosure within their arguments or otherwise misunderstanding the disclosure of Steder (see statement of “adjusting a resolution accuracy” which is not disclosed in [0020] of Steder). The “adapting” of Steder is to the “discrete increment” or “unit “increments””, etc. which clearly correspond to Applicant’s “unitary regions” or similar of [0147] of US 20240091944 A1.
Claim Objections
Claims 75 and 91 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 75 and 91, the claims recite “the configuration different”. It should read “the configurations being different”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
General Note:
In light of Applicant’s clear statement on Page 16 of the Remarks filed 12/01/2025 a “precautionary occlusion” is interpreted as “an occlusion which is introduced to the motion planning model as a precautionary measure”
In light of Applicant’s Remarks filed 12/01/2025 on Page 19 “any amount of deviation” from “the predicted behavior” qualifies as not “acting consistently”. Claims 88 and 104 relate.
Regarding Claims 91 – 106, most, if not all, of the recitations related to the “processor-based” limitations are recited such that they read “that [verbs]” or appear to attempt to further limit a preceding recitation with the phrasing “wherein to”.
Those recitations of the form “that [verb]” have been interpreted as reading/meaning “configured to [verb]” or other wise recites active verbs such that a clear functional limitation is recited. Per MPEP 2114, “Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally”, “ ““[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)” and “Functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function”. At present, if not interpreted as clear functional limitations, in particular those which are limited to a specific structure (or structures), then the claims would be readily rejected with respect to almost any generic processor or computer, as the specification provides no indication that the hardware is anything other than generic computer hardware, and said generic hardware is capable of being programmed and/or operated in the manner claimed.
Regarding Claims 83, 85, 99, and 101, the claims recite the limitation “the first robot being represented as an obstacle”. Based on the preceding limitations this limitation has been construed as meaning “the first robot being represented as an obstacle based on the first motion plan” and relatedly, the “being represented” referring to the preceding “represent(ing/s) the first robot as an obstacle based on the first motion plan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 75 – 106 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.
Regarding Claims 82, the claim recites the limitation “the processor-based motion planner of the first robot control system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The processor-based motion planner is never previously recited as specifically being “of the first robot control system”, or even a “first robot control system” recited (only a generic “robot control system”), and it is clear from the following limitation of “a processor-based motion planner of a second robot control system” that Applicant considers a motion planner being “of” a particular control system to be a patentable distinction.
Furthermore, the overall limitation preceding the “further comprising:” appears to be completely redundant outside of this distinction to the independent claims.
Therefore, in the interest of compact prosecution, the entire limitation of “The method of claim 75, wherein the performing collision assessment by the processor-based motion planner for each edge of a first motion planning graph includes performing the collision assessment by the processor-based motion planner of the first robot control system for each edge of a first motion planning graph, and further comprising:” of Claim 84 is interpreted as instead reading:
“The method of claim 75, wherein the robot control system is a first robot control system of the first robot and the processor-based motion planner is of the first robot control system, and the method further comprises:”
Regarding Claims 86 and 102, the claims recite the limitation “generat(es/ing) a first motion plan that reduces at least one of a stoppage, slowdown, or introduction of a precautionary occlusion”.
First, the claims appear to merely describe the limitation in terms of the desired function or result achieved by generating a first motion plan, wherein generating a first motion plan is inherent already to generating “a first executable motion plan”. “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”, MPEP 2173.05(g). Reducing appears to be the intent of the invention, with no technical guarantee thereof, and the achievement thereof being through particular preceding limitations, not a limitation merely reciting it as being so.
Second, and both related to the above and alternative thereto, it is unclear what is encompassed by “reduces at least one of a stoppage, slowdown, or introduction of a precautionary occlusion”. The claims provide no baseline or other initial or starting item from which to reduce from, and therefore it is highly unclear what the phrase even means.
Third, and both related to the above and alternative thereto, “reduces at least one of a stoppage, slowdown, or introduction of a precautionary occlusion” appears to be a subjective limitation. The specification does not appear to supply some objective standard for measuring the scope of the phrase and appears to require the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction. What is considered a reduction or not has no apparent thresholds, particularly wherein any arbitrary comparison is possible under the present construction of the claim. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV) relates.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the overall limitation has been given minimal patentable weight as any intent to produce a motion plan per the means of the independent claims which is more efficient would appear to read on the limitation under the vague and unclear scope provided.
Regarding Claim 83 the claim depends from Claim 82 and inherits the deficiencies of Claim 82 as described above. Therefore, Claim 83 is rejected under the same logic as Claim 82 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 75 – 89 and 91 – 105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent Claim 75 is rejected below and is considered representative of independent Claim 91.
Claim 75 recites:
A method of operation in a motion planning system to generate motion plans that are safety system aware, the motion plans executable to control one or more robots, the method comprising:
performing collision assessment by a processor-based motion planner for each edge of a first motion planning graph, the first motion planning graph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges, each of the nodes representing a respective one of a plurality of configurations of a first robot, the configurations different from one antother, and each of the edges representing a respective transition between a respective pair of the configurations of the first robot that are represented by a respective pair of the nodes that are connected by the respective edge;
for two or more of the edges of the first motion planning graph, determining whether a respective transition represented by the respective edge in the first motion planning graph will violate one or more safety rules of a set of safety monitoring rules of a processor-based workcell safety system that monitors an environment in which at least the first robot will operate;
for each of the two or more edges of the first motion planning graph, setting a cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph based at least in part on both: i) the collision assessment and ii) the determination of whether a respective transition represented by the respective edge in the motion plan graph will violate one or more safety rules of the set of safety monitoring rules of the processor-based workcell safety system; and
generating a first executable motion plan based at least in part on the first motion planning graph with the cost set for each of the two or more edges, the first executable motion plan executable by a robot control system to control operation of the first robot.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03 relates.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) relates.
The claim recites limitations of “performing”, “determining”, “setting”, and “generating” information, with no particular limitations provided which render them unable to be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
For example, the limitation of “performing collision assessment … for each edge of a first motion planning graph” does not recite any particularities as to the nature of the collision assessment, and the planning graph is only limited throughout the claim such that at minimum it must have two nodes and two edges and therefore is not required to be particularly complex. In summary, the claim is constructed at a very high level of generality. As a particular example, a person might readily illustrate a situation of a mobile robot traversing an area with obstacles on a sheet of paper (or imagine the situation) wherein a start and end point are nodes, two different paths are drawn between the nodes, and a person assesses collision by comparing the paths and the obstacles.
As another example, the “determining whether a respective transition … will violate one or more safety rules” limitation might amount to essentially the same as the previous example, where the same or different rules are applied with respect to the relationship of the paths with respect to other items in the environment (obstacles). The rules are not specified and may be as simple as not being located in certain areas, not approaching obstacles, not colliding, not moving in a certain direction, etc.
As a further example, the “setting a cost … based … on” limitation (wherein the based on is effectively end results of the preceding limitation) is similarly not specified in any particular manner and recited at a high level of generality. The costs may be completely arbitrarily assigned based on a person’s personal judgement, a simple mathematical formula followed, etc.
Finally, the “generating a first executable motion plan … executable by a robot control system” is again recited at a high level of generality. The level of detail and difficulty required in generating an executable plan, and even what makes a plan “executable” is entirely dependent on the robot in question and tools involved. Generating at least a basic executable plan is well within the expected level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art of real-time robotics motion planning.
Examiner notes that based on dependent Claim 90, “generating” clearly should not be interpreted as equivalent to and/or inclusive of “controlling operation of” a robot, and the language of “executable” (emphasis added) rather than “executing” is additionally clarifying that the plan is not executed as part of the claim.
These limitations, as drafted, are a basic process or processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “by a processor-based motion planner” or similar. That is, other than reciting “by a processor-based motion planner” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of being performed by a generic computer or components thereof does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites mental processes.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of “by a processor-based motion planner”. Examiner notes that the preamble may recite additional basic components of “a motion planning system”, though said system does not appear integrated into the method recited and furthermore is no different in analysis that the motion planner.
With respect to the “by a processor-based motion planner” limitation, this limitation appears to merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer or components thereof. It is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating certain activities.
Examiner alternatively notes that one or more of the steps listed above as being part of the abstract idea would also appear to be no more than mere data gathering and outputting which is a judicially recognized insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05 relates.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim, if any, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the data-processing hardware is anything other than a conventional computer or components thereof.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
With respect to Claim 91, the claim recites effectively the same limitations and subject matter as Claim 75. Claim 91 is therefore rejected under the same logic as Claim 75 above.
With respect to the dependent claims of independent claims 75 and 91 other than Claims 90 and 106 (Claims 75 – 89 and 91 – 105), the claims merely recite additional details to the mental processes recited in Claim 75 and/or additional generic computing components or other extra-solution activities which do not meaningfully alter the rejections made above with respect to Claim 75.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 75 – 80, 82, 84, 86 – 88, 90 – 96, 98, 100, 102 – 104, and 106 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorin et al. (US 20190163191 A1) in view of Lalonde et al. (US 20180172450 A1).
Regarding Claim 75, Sorin teaches:
A method of operation in a motion planning system (See at least [0006] “A system for motion planning … can include a … motion planning module”) to generate motion plans that are safety system aware (See at least [0024] “Specialized robot motion planning hardware for autonomous vehicles are provided. The robot motion planning hardware for autonomous vehicles involves risk-aware robot motion planning”), the motion plans executable to control one or more robots (See at least [0057] “During run time, the cost, and the probability of that cost occurring, will change. Thus, the motion planning performed by the motion planning module 205 can be iterative in nature. That is, replanning may comprise the steps of making a plan, making a single movement, and then repeating the motion planning process again”), the method comprising:
performing collision assessment by a processor-based motion planner for each edge of a first motion planning graph (See at least [0049] “A planning graph is stored in the memory storage. As mentioned above, the planning graph can be a lattice, PRM, PRM*, or other suitable graph. The hardware processor at the motion planning module 205 samples the trajectories output at the object tracker 203 to adjust the cost/risk. In other words, the motion planning module 205 adjusts a probability of collision, which can include a cost and/or risk value, along each edge of the graph to account for the sample trajectories”), the first motion planning graph comprising a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges, each of the nodes representing a respective one of a plurality of configurations of a first robot, the configurations different from one another and each of the edges representing a respective transition between a respective pair of the configurations of the first robot that are represented by a respective pair of the nodes that are connected by the respective edge (See at least [0037] “The planning graph construction component involves the creation of a graph of poses and motions in a robot's configuration space. In some cases, each node in the graph completely defines the state of the robot in a specific pose, and each edge defines a motion between poses”);
for two or more of the edges of the first motion planning graph, determining whether a respective transition represented by the respective edge in the first motion planning graph will violate one … safety rule[s] … of a processor-based workcell safety system that monitors an environment in which at least the first robot will operate (Examiner notes that as presently constructed, collision assessment and safety rules are not recited as mutually exclusive, or in other words, the safety rule(s) are not claimed as exclusive of being related to checking for collision. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “one or more” is inclusive of “one” or “more” (a plurality), or in other words, only one rule is necessarily checked for violation. Finally, Examiner notes that “processor-based workcell safety system” does not necessarily need to monitor/sense/observe a workcell per Applicant’s specification, but is inclusive of any monitored/sensed/observed environment. See [0009] “A processor-based workcell safety system may be considered as comprised of two portions: sensors positioned and oriented to monitor at least a portion of an operational environment or workcell”. Additionally, Sorin is directed additionally to robots in general including object manipulation wherein the environment can readily be considered as a workcell. See at least [0003] and [0024].
See at least [0053] “The motion planning module 205 generates a motion plan that balances the risk of collision with other obstacles versus the efficiency of reaching a goal location by calculating, and then assigning, a risk for every edge in the planning graph. The edges of the planning graph stored at the motion planning module 205 that would result in collision with certainty (e.g., those static obstacles) may either be removed or assigned a risk”, [0036] “The perception component involves the use of a combination of sensors and processing to produce a model of the environment. Perception can be carried out by any suitable computer vision and sensing architecture. In general, the model of the environment can be considered to be in the form of an occupancy grid, which is a data structure representing which regions of the space contain obstacles in a discretized view of the environment”, and [0070] “The collision detection module 310 can include a hardware processor; memory storage; and precomputed collision data stored at the memory storage such that during motion planning, as perception data is received, the perception data is compared by the hardware processor to the precomputed collision data stored in the memory storage to determine collisions”);
for each of the two or more edges of the first motion planning graph, setting a cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph based at least in part on both: i) the collision assessment and ii) the determination of whether a respective transition represented by the respective edge in the motion plan graph will violate one or more safety rules of the set of safety monitoring rules of the processor-based workcell safety system (Examiner notes that “cost” is not defined or otherwise limited by the claim and is a term open to particularly broad interpretation. For example, [0054] recites “If instead a cost function that trades off risk vs. efficiency is desired, then the motion planning module can compute a modified cost using the two terms and then run a shortest path algorithm” and therefore both “risk” and “efficiency” can be considered as “cost” within the context of the given cost function. As disclosed by Sorin, there are various terms/factors which can be assigned to a respective edge and which are components of “cost” even if not explicitly named as such. Furthermore, Sorin appears to frequently use the terms “cost” and “risk” interchangeably.
See at least [0049] “The hardware processor at the motion planning module 205 samples the trajectories output at the object tracker 203 to adjust the cost/risk. In other words, the motion planning module 205 adjusts a probability of collision, which can include a cost and/or risk value, along each edge of the graph to account for the sample trajectories” and [0053] “The motion planning module 205 generates a motion plan that balances the risk of collision with other obstacles versus the efficiency of reaching a goal location by calculating, and then assigning, a risk for every edge in the planning graph. The edges of the planning graph stored at the motion planning module 205 that would result in collision with certainty (e.g., those static obstacles) may either be removed or assigned a risk. In many practical applications for autonomous vehicles, the edges remain but are assigned a risk (which may be very small/negligible or very large/maximum assigned value). The risk assigned to edges can be based on predefined risk values for static objects (e.g., 100%)”); and
generating a first executable motion plan based at least in part on the first motion planning graph with the cost set for each of the two or more edges, the first executable motion plan executable by a robot control system to control operation of the first robot (See at least [0054] “After the motion planning module 205 samples the trajectories and determines the probability of a collision for the edges (based on the risk assigned to the edges), the motion planning module determines the “shortest” path to a target location by considering cost and probability of collision. For example, the fastest way to get to a goal location may be to speed past a bicyclist going straight, but that path may have a 2% chance (e.g., estimate of collision) of knocking over the bicyclist, which is a high cost (poor/bad decision). Other path options may include going around the bicyclist. As another example, hitting a garbage can is less costly than hitting a dog, even if the probability of hitting the garbage can is greater. Therefore, the effective cost of hitting the garbage is far less than hitting the dog. If the probability of collision is 100%, then the effective cost is at a maximum. In another example—for a case of using a risk constraint, if a probability of collision needs to be less than 5% per trajectory, a search can be performed that finds the minimum path cost with the constraint of less than 5% probability of collision. If instead a cost function that trades off risk vs. efficiency is desired, then the motion planning module can compute a modified cost using the two terms and then run a shortest path algorithm. This path is output from the motion planning module 205 and sent to the robot to move accordingly”).
Sorin does not teach, but Lalonde which also discloses risk/safety aware planning graphs using costs assigned to edges teaches:
[determining whether a respective transition] … [will violate one] or more safety rules of a set of safety monitoring rules
Or in other words, teaches that multiple different “safety {monitoring) rules” might be used/applied.
See at least [0222] “FIG. 16 illustrates various trajectory costs, in accordance with an example embodiment. Each candidate trajectory can be numerically scored, or graded, based on one or more trajectory costs. The trajectory costs can include, but are not limited to, numerical representations of: … [0225] Obstacle distance cost, which can specify an inverse or other penalty based on how closely a robotic device approaches an obstacle or other object in the environment. In some embodiments, any trajectory that collides with an obstacle or passes into a hard padding zone, or region that may be too close to another object for safety's sake, such as a region within a predetermined distance (e.g., 5 inches, 10 cm, 20 feet, 2 meters) of the robotic device, can be considered as infeasible (i.e., be associated with a very large or infinite cost)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize more than just certain collision as a rule to be validated/checked for violation and used for risk and collision assessment, as taught by Lalonde, in the system and method of Sorin with a reasonable expectation of success. By incorporating more “obstacle distance cost” rules of hard padding zone of an object and/or a region about the robotic device for determining “a very large or infinite cost” as taught by Lalonde, two additional means/checks of increasing safety in the system of Sorin might be achieved beyond “certain” collisions (which Examiner notes are handled identically, i.e. by a large or infinite cost of 100% risk/cost assignment or removal of an edge).
Regarding Claim 76, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Sorin further teaches:
wherein setting a cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph based at least in part on both: i) the collision assessment and ii) the determination of whether the respective transition represented by the respective edge in the motion plan graph will violate a safety rule of a set of safety monitoring rules of a processor-based workcell safety system includes setting the cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph where the cost represents an assessed probability of collision associated with the respective transition represented by the respective edge (See again recitations of independent claim, and furthermore at least [0053] “To ensure a high probability of being collision free with uncertain obstacles, the motion planning module 205 can sample over the distribution of trajectories from the probabilistic estimate and calculate a probability of collision with each edge in the planning graph”
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner furthermore notes that “represents” is a broad term and does not mean that it actually is a probability of collision).
Regarding Claim 77, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Sorin further teaches:
wherein setting a cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph based at least in part on both: i) the collision assessment and ii) the determination of whether respective transition represented by the respective edge in the motion plan graph will violate a safety rule of a set of safety monitoring rules of a processor-based workcell safety system includes setting the cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph where the cost represents an assessed probability of violation of at least one of the set of safety monitoring rules associated with the respective transition represented by the respective edge (See again recitations of independent claim, and furthermore at least [0053] “To ensure a high probability of being collision free with uncertain obstacles, the motion planning module 205 can sample over the distribution of trajectories from the probabilistic estimate and calculate a probability of collision with each edge in the planning graph”
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner furthermore notes that “represents” is a broad term and does not mean that it actually is a probability of collision).
Regarding Claim 78, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Sorin further teaches:
wherein setting a cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph based at least in part on both: i) the collision assessment and ii) the determination of whether respective transition represented by the respective edge in the motion plan graph will violate a safety rule of a set of safety monitoring rules of a processor-based workcell safety system includes setting the cost for the respective edge in the first motion planning graph where the cost represents an assessed probability of collision associated with the respective transition represented by the respective edge and represents an assessed probability of violation of at least one of the set of safety monitoring rules associated with the respective transition represented by the respective edge (See again recitations of independent claim, and furthermore at least [0053] “To ensure a high probability of being collision free with uncertain obstacles, the motion planning module 205 can sample over the distribution of trajectories from the probabilistic estimate and calculate a probability of collision with each edge in the planning graph”
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner furthermore notes that “represents” is a broad term and does not mean that it actually is a probability of collision
Examiner again notes that the claims do not presently claim collision as not being a safety monitoring rule. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Sorin and Lalonde, would consider not colliding as a safety related rule.
Furthermore, and additionally, neither the independent claim or this claim recites probability determination in any manner, merely representation, which can simply be “represented” in absolutes (yes, no; 0%, 100%; existence, non-existence)).
Regarding Claim 79, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Sorin further teaches:
wherein generating a first executable motion plan based at least in part on the first motion planning graph with the cost set for each of the two or more edges includes performing a least cost analysis on the first motion planning graph to identify a path between two configurations of the first robot (See at least [0056] “By balancing, or at least considering, risk vs. efficiency, the motion planning module 205 provides risk-aware motion planning. In one embodiment, given a set of desired goal positions at time H (or, a preference over positions at time H) the motion planning module 205 may comprise (a) removing an edge, or add cost or risk to each edge based on possible collisions; (b) removing, or adding, cost to each edge based on the layout of the road; and/or (c) computing a plan using least cost, plus possibly a risk constraint” or Claim 19 “the path identifying a path with a lowest cost”).
Regarding Claim 80, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Lalonde has already been shown to teach and the combination and reasons for the combination with Sorin already provided above with respect to the independent claim:
wherein determining whether the respective transition represented by the respective edge in the first motion planning graph will violate one or more safety rules of the set of safety monitoring rules of the processor-based workcell safety system includes determining whether the respective transition represented by the respective edge in the first motion planning graph will violate one or more of the safety rules that specify a safe distance to be maintained between the first robot and an object in the environment in which at least the first robot will operate of the set of safety monitoring rules (See again [0225] of Lalonde which discusses a “hard padding zone” and “region”).
Regarding Claim 82, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches
The method of claim 75,
Furthermore, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches the remaining limitations of Claim 82. As presently constructed, the claim does not appear to amount to more than applying the same method/process as was applied to a first robot to a second robot. There is no claim limitation which alters the process from that of the independent claim; the process of each robot appears entirely independent of each other. Furthermore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, the first and second robots and any associated control systems might be the same, as there is no explicit limitation indicating they must be separate. It is common practice in claim construction to use numbering terms such as “first” and “second” without them inherently indicating that they must be different. The numbering prefix limitations may only serve to indicate that a second instance of the process occurs. Additionally, even if considered separate, there is no limitation as to how any control system is separate. It is well known, routine, and conventional (common knowledge) to control multiple devices from a single local or remote computer, or conversely to distribute the computing across multiple local or remote computers. Furthermore, it is a matter of arbitrary labelling when dealing with computer-implemented functions without clear and explicit hardware limitations being provided in describing one function/program/module/etc. as being “separate” from another.
Therefore, the limitations of this claim are readily disclosed by Sorin which discloses using, reusing, and reprogramming the motion planning module for different robots. See at least [0005] “The reconfigurable processor can perform the motion planning for a particular robot and/or particular scenario and then be reconfigured to solve the motion planning for a different robot and/or scenario” and [0009] “The motion planning module can be reused, or reprogrammed, for different robots (i.e., reconfigurable) or the motion planning module can be designed for a specific robot”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner preemptively notes that the use of the same motion planning process(or) across multiple robots is also common knowledge.
Regarding Claim 84, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches
The method of claim 75,
Furthermore, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches the remaining limitations of Claim 84. As presently constructed, the claim does not appear to amount to more than applying the same method/process as was applied to a first robot to a second robot. There is no claim limitation which alters the process from that of the independent claim; the process of each robot appears entirely independent of each other. Furthermore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, the first and second robots and any associated control systems might be the same, as there is no explicit limitation indicating they must be separate. It is common practice in claim construction to use numbering terms such as “first” and “second” without them inherently indicating that they must be different. The numbering prefix limitations may only serve to indicate that a second instance of the process occurs. Additionally, even if considered separate, there is no limitation as to how any control system is separate. It is well known, routine, and conventional (common knowledge) to control multiple devices from a single local or remote computer, or conversely to distribute the computing across multiple local or remote computers. Furthermore, it is a matter of arbitrary labelling when dealing with computer-implemented functions without clear and explicit hardware limitations being provided in describing one function/program/module/etc. as being “separate” from another.
Therefore, the limitations of this claim are readily disclosed by Sorin which discloses using, reusing, and reprogramming the motion planning module for different robots. See at least [0005] “The reconfigurable processor can perform the motion planning for a particular robot and/or particular scenario and then be reconfigured to solve the motion planning for a different robot and/or scenario” and [0009] “The motion planning module can be reused, or reprogrammed, for different robots (i.e., reconfigurable) or the motion planning module can be designed for a specific robot”.
In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner preemptively notes that the use of the same motion planning process(or) across multiple robots is also common knowledge.
Regarding Claim 86, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Sorin further teaches:
wherein generating a first executable motion plan based at least in part on the first motion planning graph with the cost set for each of the two or more edges includes generating a first motion plan that reduces at least one of a stoppage, slowdown, or introduction of a precautionary occlusion (See the 112(b) rejection above and at least [0053] “The motion planning module 205 generates a motion plan that balances the risk of collision with other obstacles versus the efficiency of reaching a goal location by calculating, and then assigning, a risk for every edge in the planning graph”).
Regarding Claim 87, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75,
Sorin further teaches:
further comprising:
predicting a behavior of a human in at least a portion of the environment in which at least the first robot will operate (See at least [0034] “For the vehicle embodiment, in addition to the static obstacles, which may form the obstacle collision regions 102, 104, other obstacles are relevant, in particular dynamic obstacles, including those representing objects that move in known/certain trajectories (e.g., a falling brick, a rolling can) and those that are controlled by a conscious being (e.g., a bicyclist, pedestrian, bird)”, [0027] “As used herein “risk-aware” refers to the inclusion of probabilistic estimates of future trajectories of dynamic obstacles that may appear with some uncertainty in an operating environment of the vehicle or other robot”, and [0044] “The object tracker 203 uses input from one or more of the sensors 201 to identify a dynamic object and output a probability distribution of future trajectories over time for each identified object. The object tracker 203 is used to detect and track obstacles with uncertain movement. For example, the object tracker 203 may identify from data from one or more of the sensors 201 that there is another car on the road (the identified dynamic object). The output of the object tracker 203 with respect to the car may indicate, at a given time on the one or more associated trajectories, that there is a 10% likelihood of that dynamic object swerving in front of the autonomous vehicle and a 90% likelihood of that dynamic object slowing down (due to, for example, an upcoming stop sign)”); and
wherein generating the first executable motion plan includes generating the first executable motion plan based in part on the predicted behavior of the human (See at least [0050] “In an example, the motion planning module 205 samples the trajectories from the probabilistic estimate of the future trajectory of each dynamic obstacle and performs collision detection with each sample”).
Regarding Claim 88, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 87,
Sorin further teaches:
further comprising:
determining whether the human is acting consistently with the predicted behavior; and
in response to a determination that the human is not acting consistently with the predicted behavior, the generating the first executable motion plan includes generating the first executable motion plan that causes a slowing of movement of at least the first robot or causes another action that reduces a probability of the first robot colliding with an unpredictable behavior of the human (See at least [0057] “During run time, the cost, and the probability of that cost occurring, will change. Thus, the motion planning performed by the motion planning module 205 can be iterative in nature. That is, replanning may comprise the steps of making a plan, making a single movement, and then repeating the motion planning process again” and [0070] “[0070] The collision detection module 310 can include a hardware processor; memory storage; and precomputed collision data stored at the memory storage such that during motion planning, as perception data is received, the perception data is compared by the hardware processor to the precomputed collision data stored in the memory storage to determine collisions”
Furthermore and alternatively, Examiner notes that “in response to” appears to mean “if” or in other words be contingent upon “a determination that the human is not acting consistently” wherein reaching such a determination is not a required part of the process. Therefore, the latter limitation appears to be a contingent limitation and is not required if the condition is not met. MPEP 2111.04(II) relates).
Regarding Claim 90, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Sorin further teaches:
further comprising: controlling operation of the first robot based on the first motion plan (See again at least [0054] “This path is output from the motion planning module 205 and sent to the robot to move accordingly”).
Regarding Claims 91 – 96, 98, 100, 102 – 104, and 106, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 75 – 80, 82, 84, 86 – 88, and 90 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 75 – 80, 82, 84, 86 – 88, and 90 above.
Claims 81, 89, 97, and 105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorin et al. in view of Lalonde et al., or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorin et al. in view of Lalonde et al. and Steder et al. (US 20190079530 A1)
Regarding Claim 81, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Sorin further teaches:
wherein determining whether the respective transition represented by the respective edge in the first motion planning graph will violate one or more safety rules of the set of safety monitoring rules of the processor-based workcell safety system includes accounting for a granularity of one or more sensors of the processor-based workcell safety system in determining whether the respective transition represented by the respective edge in the first motion planning graph will violate one or more of the safety rules that specify a safe distance to be maintained between the first robot and an object in the environment in which at least the first robot will operate of the set of safety monitoring rules (Examiner notes that while Applicant’s specification explains a potential meaning of “accounting for a granularity of one or more sensors”, the claim itself is non-specific. Examiner believes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, the claim might simply mean that the inherent properties and operational characteristics of the sensor(s) are considered when creating or designing the system. Examiner takes official notice that considering the properties of the component of a system is common knowledge and standard procedure).
Alternatively, and in the interest of compact prosecution, see at least Steder which clearly indicates that accounting for the resolution/granularity of a sensor in sensing applications such that measurements are utilized in the form of units of the smallest granular/resolution increment or otherwise simply correlated to real and traditional units is well-known and routine in the art of sensors.
See for example at least [0020] of Steder, “In accordance with a further preferred embodiment, the sensor is furthermore adapted to determine the first distance and/or the second distance as a multiple of a predefined, in particular discrete, increment. A “discrete increment” is to be understood in this connection as a fixed increment that can be counted off and that is defined uniformly for an entire lane. The resolution of the sensor can be adapted to the discrete increment such that the sensor determines the distance in the unit “increments”. For this purpose, the resolution accuracy (“resolution increment”) of the sensor can preferably amount to half a predefined increment or less so that the distance can be determined reliably and precisely in the unit “increments” (e.g. when the edge decisive for the distance is in the region of a transition between two sensor pixels)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize base sensor measurement increments for measurements as taught by Steder in the system or method of Sorin or Sorin in combination with Lalonde with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well understood that sensors have a finite accuracy and it can be more expeditious to directly utilize the sensor data rather than convert the data, particularly wherein the conversion is readily understood and/or apparent and/or the sensor data increment is itself sufficiently representative for the task to be controlled.
Regarding Claim 89, the combination of Sorin and Lalonde teaches:
The method of claim 75
Sorin further teaches:
wherein the generating the first executable motion plan based includes generating the first executable motion plan based on a resolution or granularity of at least one component of the processor-based workcell safety system (Examiner notes that while Applicant’s specification explains a potential meaning of “based on a resolution or granularity of one or more sensors”, the claim itself is non-specific. Examiner believes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase, the claim might simply mean that the inherent properties and operational characteristics of the sensor(s) are considered when creating or designing the system. Examiner takes official notice that considering the properties of the component of a system is common knowledge and standard procedure).
Alternatively, and in the interest of compact prosecution, see at least Steder which clearly indicates that accounting for the resolution/granularity of a sensor in sensing applications such that measurements are utilized in the form of units of the smallest granular/resolution increment or otherwise simply correlated to real and traditional units is well-known and routine in the art of sensors.
See for example at least [0020] of Steder, “In accordance with a further preferred embodiment, the sensor is furthermore adapted to determine the first distance and/or the second distance as a multiple of a predefined, in particular discrete, increment. A “discrete increment” is to be understood in this connection as a fixed increment that can be counted off and that is defined uniformly for an entire lane. The resolution of the sensor can be adapted to the discrete increment such that the sensor determines the distance in the unit “increments”. For this purpose, the resolution accuracy (“resolution increment”) of the sensor can preferably amount to half a predefined increment or less so that the distance can be determined reliably and precisely in the unit “increments” (e.g. when the edge decisive for the distance is in the region of a transition between two sensor pixels)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize base sensor measurement increments for measurements as taught by Steder in the system or method of Sorin or Sorin in combination with Lalonde with a reasonable expectation of success. It is well understood that sensors have a finite accuracy and it can be more expeditious to directly utilize the sensor data rather than convert the data, particularly wherein the conversion is readily understood and/or apparent and/or the sensor data increment is itself sufficiently representative for the task to be controlled.
Regarding Claims 97 and 105, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 81 and 89 with respect to the application of prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 81 and 89 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 83, 85, 99, and 101 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action as well as 35 U.S.C. 101 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Examiner did not find, alone or in reasonable combination, all of the limitations of Claims 83 or 85, or their equivalents (Claims 99 and 101) in Examiner’s search of the prior art. In particular, the application of the same process of the independent claim to an additional robot and then using one of the motion plans calculated using said process to then treat that robot as an obstacle in the process of the other robot was not found alone or in reasonable combination. While it is well-known to represent dynamic obstacles as illustrated by Sorin, the particular nature of representing dynamic obstacles is infinite. Furthermore, the particular use of the output of one motion planner as an input to another same motion planner carries with it particular limitations and drawbacks at the same time as it carries particular advantages, which would render that particular solution out of many as non-obvious in Examiner’s opinion. For example, as the output of one motion planning cycle is the input of another, there is no way to clearly and cleanly motion plan for both robots at the same time. There will always effectively be a higher priority robot (the one treated as an obstacle to be avoided) and the applications to, for example collaborative or cooperative operations or even shared workspace operations appears limited.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cella et al. (US 20220187847 A1) which discloses motion planning graphs including assigned costs to edges. See at least in particular [2346].
Sorin et al. (2020) (US 20200377085 A1)* which discloses motion planning using motion planning graphs with respect to dynamic objects and static objects where costs are associated with edges.
*Examiner notes that during prior art searching it came to Examiner’s attention that Duke University and Realtime Robotics may share some relationship. In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant is respectfully requested to notify Examiner of any common ownership or similar situations in accordance with the MPEP such that any 35 U.S.C. 102(b) exceptions might be preemptively identified. See for example MPEP 2153 Prior Art Exceptions Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and MPEP 2156 Joint Research Agreements.
Kimura (JP 2020049554 A) which discloses motion planning of two robots having planned trajectories having at least initial overlapping paths.
Sorin et al. (WO 2019) (WO 2019183141 A1) which discloses motion planning using motion planning graphs with respect to dynamic objects and static objects where costs are associated with edges.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/MATTHEW C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657