DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “The computer-readable medium of claim 18 ….”. However, claim 18 recites “A computer storage medium …”. Please amend the claim language to match the language.
Regarding claim 20, it is objected for the same reasons as provided in claim 19 objection
mutandis mutatis.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 claim 5, the claim language recites “… the second waypoint is a final waypoint in the trajectory that defines a final pose of the robot”. However, in claim 4 (on which claim 5 depends) recites “second waypoint is an intermediate waypoint of the trajectory that defines an intermediate pose of the robot”. It’s unclear based on the claim language, whether the second waypoint is an intermediate waypoint or final waypoint in light of the claim language in claim 4 and 5. For the purpose of examination, Examiner considers the second waypoint to be any one of intermediate or final waypoint.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to “a computer storage medium” which covers both statutory and non-statutory subject matter as the storage medium may be construed to read on both non-transitory media and transitory signals. See MPEP 2106.03. This claim may be made patent eligible by amending the claim to recite “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium …” or similar language.
Regarding claims 19-20, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected independent claim, and also inherit the deficiencies described above. Therefore, they are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sundaralingam (US 20240131706 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sundaralingam US 20240131706 A1 teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first waypoint (para 0074 wherein “The generated path may be specified by a number (e.g., represented by a variable w) of waypoints (e.g., represented by a variable θ.sub.[0,w]) through which the manipulator 104 passes (e.g., in a linear manner) along a trajectory”) that represents the current pose of a robot comprising a plurality of joints (para 0105 wherein joint configuration for the current robot pose is provided; “For example, the line search samples may include a step direction and a step size for each of the joints J1-J4. Applying the line search samples to a current joint configuration may cause one or more of the joints J1-J4 to move, which in turn may cause the manipulator 104 to move to a next joint configuration”);
receiving a second waypoint that represents a target pose of the robot (para 0139-0140 wherein a goal pose is provided “[0140] Referring to FIG. 3A, the trajectory optimization functionality 324 generates the trajectory solutions 328 that each position the end-effector 109 (see FIG. 1) in the goal pose 312 (e.g., represented by the variable X.sub.g) at the final timestep”);
obtaining a first joint state that defines an angular joint configuration that corresponds with the first waypoint of the robot (para 0105 wherein joint configuration for the current robot pose is provided; “For example, the line search samples may include a step direction and a step size for each of the joints J1-J4. Applying the line search samples to a current joint configuration may cause one or more of the joints J1-J4 to move, which in turn may cause the manipulator 104 to move to a next joint configuration”);
generating a motion between the first joint state and a second joint state that defines an angular joint configuration that corresponds with the second waypoint of the robot (para 0139 wherein joint configuration for the target pose is determined to which the robot is moved from current configuration; “In some examples, the CuRobo functionality 130 initializes the seed by at least optimizing only for the terminal or final joint configuration (e.g., represented by the variable θ.sub.T) and/or then initializing the trajectory with a linear interpolation from the start or initial joint configuration (e.g., represented by the variable θ.sub.0) to the solved final joint configuration”), wherein generating the motion comprises performing an optimization process on the first and second joint states of the robot that simultaneously optimizes a unified joint-manipulability-and-joint- limit-distance metric of the robot (para 0141, 0149-0151 wherein the optimization includes minimizing cost representing smoothness (during manipulation) cost and path length cost; “[0151] The smoothness and bound cost term 378 may be calculated based on the running cost, the path length minimization cost, the zero velocity cost, the startup cost, the smoothness cost, and/or the joint limit cost. For example, the smoothness and bound cost term 378 may be a sum of the smoothness cost and the joint limit cost”; “The path length minimization cost may be calculated as a L-2 norm of joint acceleration across timesteps. The optimization functionality 319 may compute the joint space acceleration at every timestep using backward difference of position, followed by backward difference of velocity. Given this finite differenced acceleration, the optimization functionality 319 may compute a weighted squared L-2 norm across joint dimensions Σ.sub.t∈[0,T]∥β{umlaut over (q)}.sub.t∥.sub.2.sup.2 where β∈custom-character.sup.d is a weight vector across d joints. The weight vector β penalizes joints moving geometrically larger links more than links that are moving geometrically smaller links (e.g., joints closer to the end-effector are weighted less than joints that are closer to the base). This scaling reduces the tendency to move the larger joints of the manipulator 104 and instead encourages movement of the smaller joints of the manipulator 104 when reaching the target pose”); and
generating control rules for the motion to be followed by the robot based on the target pose of the second waypoint (0224 wherein controller generates control instructions for the robot to follow based on the generated configuration).
Regarding claim 2, Sundaralingam teaches wherein the motion between the first joint state and the second joint state comprises causing the robot to move to avoid joint limits of the robot (0149 wherein cost is added to avoid joint limits; “[0149] With regard to enforcing joint limits, the trajectory optimization functionality 324 may generate the trajectory solutions 328 that avoid exceeding joint limits”).
Regarding claim 3, Sundaralingam teaches wherein receiving the first waypoint comprises performing a forward kinematics computation on the first joint state (para 0107 wherein “The kinematics functionality 368 may map a joint configuration of the manipulator 104 to a pose of the geometry of the manipulator 104 in coordinates of the environment 108 (referred to as world coordinates)... During the forward kinematics analysis, the kinematics functionality 368 may map the joint configuration to world coordinates for poses and/or spheres”).
Regarding claim 4, Sundaralingam teaches wherein the first waypoint is a waypoint within a defined motion trajectory comprising a sequence of waypoints and the second waypoint is an intermediate waypoint of the trajectory that defines an intermediate pose of the robot (para 0074 wherein “The generated path may be specified by a number (e.g., represented by a variable w) of waypoints (e.g., represented by a variable θ.sub.[0,w]) through which the manipulator 104 passes (e.g., in a linear manner) along a trajectory”).
Regarding claim 5, Sundaralingam teaches the first waypoint is the penultimate waypoint within a defined motion trajectory comprising a sequence of waypoints and the second waypoint is a final waypoint in the trajectory that defines a final pose of the robot (para 0074-0075 wherein the waypoints defining the trajectory includes penultimate waypoint and final pose and the joint configurations are processed using the optimization function for each of the waypoints ; “In at least one embodiment, the geometric planner functionality 320B may generate a collision-free path from the initial joint configuration (e.g., represented by the variable θ.sub.0) to the final joint configuration (e.g., represented by a variable θ.sub.T). The generated path may be specified by a number (e.g., represented by a variable w) of waypoints (e.g., represented by a variable θ.sub.[0,w]) through which the manipulator 104 passes (e.g., in a linear manner) along a trajectory”; “The vertices (or nodes) may each be a starting joint configuration (e.g., the initial joint configuration) and each of the new joint configurations may be one of the IK solutions 318 (e.g., a goal joint configuration)”).
Regarding claim 6, Sundaralingam teaches wherein generating control rules for each waypoint in the sequence of waypoints of the motion trajectory further comprises creating a sequence of control rules that achieves the sequence of desired motion according to the trajectory (para 0066 wherein control instructions for the given trajectory is provided; “The CuRobo functionality 130 may send the trajectory and/or a motion plan generated based at least in part on the trajectory to the manipulator 204 (e.g., in one or more of the instructions 154). In the images 202B-202D, the manipulator 204 is depicted moving in accordance with the trajectory and/or motion plan from the initial pose to the goal pose and avoiding the obstacle(s) 210A and 210B”).
Regarding claim 7, Sundaralingam teaches wherein defining the trajectory of waypoints comprises discretizing a planned motion trajectory into a sequence of waypoints (para 0074 wherein the trajexctory is divided in waypoints; “The generated path may be specified by a number (e.g., represented by a variable w) of waypoints (e.g., represented by a variable θ.sub.[0,w]) through which the manipulator 104 passes (e.g., in a linear manner) along a trajectory”).
Regarding claim 9, Sundaralingam teaches further comprising defining the unified joint-manipulability- and-joint-limit-distance metric of the robot (para 0105 wherein “The cost function C(θ.sub.T)) used to obtain the task cost (e.g., summation of at least a portion of the cost terms 370) may be used as the objective function for which a minimum value is being sought by the line search. Weight values may be applied to any of the cost terms 370 used to calculate the task cost”).
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 1
mutandis mutatis. Sundaralingam further teaches a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers to cause the one or more computers to perform operations (para 0576-0577).
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 9
mutandis mutatis.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 1
mutandis mutatis. Sundaralingam further teaches a computer storage medium encoded with a computer program, the program comprising instructions that are operable, when executed by data processing apparatus to cause the data processing apparatus to perform operations (para 0576-0577).
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as provided in the rejection of claim 9
mutandis mutatis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10-14, 17, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and pending resolution of any rejections under USC 112 and USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brissom US 20190105117 A1 teaches a robot manipulator system that moves the end effector to the goal position and optimize the joint configurations to avoid joint limits and singularities using minimum sum-squared-error (SSE) to the goal in Cartesian-coordinates by weighing joint movements associated with rotation and position of the joint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 pm.
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 at (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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657