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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (Claims 3 and 5) in the reply filed on 02/05/2026 is acknowledged. Consequently, the examination below is of linking generic Claim 1, Claims 3 and 5, and finally the effectively mirrored independent Claims 23 – 24.
Claims 2, 4, and 6 – 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/05/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “instructing the robot to perform a manipulation” has been interpreted as meaning a manipulation attempt is performed and not simply that instructions which might be used therefor are generated.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 23 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Raaj et al. (US 12521894 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Raaj teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system (See at least computing components 178 and Figure 4) of a robot (See at least robot 100), (i) robot data reflecting at least a portion of the robot (See at least Column 8, Lines 4 – 6, “In at least some cases, the robot 100 monitors itself and/or its environment in real-time or in near real-time”), and (ii) object data reflecting at least a portion of an object (See at least Column 10, Lines 11 – 12, “The object estimator 212 can generate a current estimate of an object (e.g., a tote) within an environment”), the object data determined based on information from at least two sources (The nature of “two sources” is not further described or defined and consequently may be effectively two different things. Two alternative teachings which both read on the limitation are herein provided:
The “sources” are anything: See at least Column 10, Lines 8 – 10, “the object estimator 212 can receive information from the robot kinematic estimator 208 and the robot position estimator 210 directly” or
The “sources” are two different sensors: See at least Column 8, Lines 4 – 5, “The robot 100 can include one or more sensors in a sensor system”);
determining, by the computing system, based on the robot data and the object data, a set of states of the object (Examiner notes that the nature of “states” is not further described or defined and can be interpreted potentially as the data items already disclosed above. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the “states of the object” are presently mapped to “object reference”.
See again Column 10, Lines 8 – 10, as well as at least Column 10, Lines 33 – 37, “In at least some cases, the object estimator 212 is configured to update the world state 213 with object references, support structure references, and/or other information related to objects in an environment in which the robot 100 operates” and Column 19, Lines 42 – 45, “The object reference can be a corrected object reference, a first object reference, a second object reference, a new object reference, or an object reference of another suitable type”), each state in the set of states associated with a distinct time at which the object is at least partially supported by the robot, wherein the set of states includes at least three states associated with three distinct times (See again Column 19, Lines 42 – 45, as well as Columns 17 and 18 in general (the disclosure providing a very broad spectrum of teaching that all read on the limitation). As provided in Column 17, an initial object reference is generated and the methods may include “generating a corrected object reference more than once” (Lines 59 – 60) which inherently requires at minimum two other object references in addition to the initial/base reference at different times. In other words, at least three states at three distinct times); and
instructing, by the computing system, the robot to perform a manipulation of the object based, at least in part, on at least one state in the set of states (See at least abstract, “the method includes controlling the mobile robot based at least partially on the object reference”).
Regarding Claim 3, Raaj teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one state in the set of states comprises a position and an orientation of the object (See at least Column 2, Line 64 – Column 3, Line 2, “An object pose is one example of an object reference potentially useful for this purpose. An object pose includes information about how an object is situated in an environment. This can include information about the position and orientation of an object relative to a known reference, another object, the robot itself, the world, etc.” and Column 19, Lines 48 – 50, “The object reference can correspond to a pose (e.g., a six degree of freedom pose) of the object 300”).
Regarding Claim 5, Raaj teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one state in the set of states comprises a six- dimensional pose of the object (See at least Column 2, Line 64 – Column 3, Line 2, “An object pose is one example of an object reference potentially useful for this purpose. An object pose includes information about how an object is situated in an environment. This can include information about the position and orientation of an object relative to a known reference, another object, the robot itself, the world, etc.” and Column 19, Lines 48 – 50, “The object reference can correspond to a pose (e.g., a six degree of freedom pose) of the object 300”).
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claim 1 with respect to the application of prior art. The only distinction from Claim 1 appears to be the specific recitation of generic computer components/structures, specifically “data processing hardware”, “memory hardware”, and “instructions”. Raaj readily teaches these additional features which are common knowledge. See at least “processor 179”, “memory 180”, persistent storage 181”, the associated data thereof, and Column 8, Lines 33 – 34 “Software features of the robot 100 may take the form of computer-executable instructions” as necessary.
The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 above.
Conclusion
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