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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para. 1 should be amended to replace the blank patent number with 11,878,419.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 23-24, 30-31, 37-39, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen (US 2020/0262064) in view of Nagarajan (US 2019/0248003).
Re claims 21, 28, and 35, Claussen discloses an apparatus comprising:
memory (implied as there is a processor for performing steps);
instructions (implied as there is a processor for performing steps); and
at least one processor circuit (processor 18) to operate based on the instructions to:
compute a three-dimensional point cloud of an object identified image data (see at least para. 24 for imaging sensor 14 is camera generating 3D point cloud of a given scene, which would include objects to be grasped; the 3D point cloud of an object is implied to be identified before being used to determine candidate grasp locations in para. 25);
associate one or more possible grasps with a target object corresponding to the object identified in the image data (see at least para. 25 for using 3D point cloud to find candidate grasps locations to perform grasp of an object in step 34);
input data including data associated with the 3D point cloud to a neural network to cause the neural network to output a plan to grasp the object identified in the image data, the plan associated with a trajectory (see at least para. 18 for using a neural network to process grasp quality of the candidate grasp locations; see at least para. 26 for selecting candidate grasp location likely to result in a successful grasp based on the grasp quality; wherein the candidate grasp location is associated with a trajectory as it is an end point); and
cause a robot to perform actions based on the plan (see at least para. 26-27 for selecting grasp location and trajectory then command motion of the robot along selected trajectory to reach the selected grasp location and execute a grasping).
Claussen is silent regarding, but Nagarajan teaches the neural network trained based on a set including the one mor more possible grasps (see at least para. 39 for selecting a grasp strategy using one or more trained machine learning models; see also para. 54 and Fig. 5 for training grasp strategy; see at least para. 104 for deep neural network model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Claussen with the features of Nagarajan because training the neural network using previous grasps of objects allows the neural network to make more accurate predictions and outputs with respect to the same or similar object.
Re claims 22, 29, and 36, Claussen further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine the actions based on a current state (trajectories have a start position and end position, therefore trajectories are determined based on a current position (i.e. current state)).
Re claims 25, 32, and 39, Claussen further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to obtain the image data from a sensor (see at least para. 25 for imaging sensor 14 arranged to capture images of objects 20 in the environment).
Re claims 26, 33, and 40, Claussen further discloses wherein the actions are first actions, and the one or more processors are to determine the first actions based on second actions (the first actions are moving the robot along the trajectory to the grasp location and the second action is grasping the object).
Re claim 42, Nagarajan further teaches wherein data associated with the 3D point cloud includes a labelled occupancy map, and the input data further includes sensor data (see at least para. 51-53 for processing sensor data, including 3D point cloud data, to output a semantic indication associated with an object, equivalent to an occupancy map, and then determine candidate grasp strategies).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Claussen with the features of Nagarajan because using sensor data and corresponding semantic map allows labeling of properties and characteristics along with objects instead of just indicating the presence of an object which can influence the grasp strategy.
Claim(s) 23-24, 30-31, and 37-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen (US 2020/0262064) in view of Nagarajan (US 20190248003) and further in view of Mousavian (US 2020/0361083).
Re claims 23, 30, and 37, modified Claussen is silent regarding, but Mousavian teaches wherein the actions are associated with six degrees of freedom (see at least para. 74-101 for 6-DOF grasps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Claussen with the features of Mousavian because a 3-DOF grasp limits the grasp diversity, such that picking up an object might be impossible given additional constraints imposed by the arm or task, as it constrains the gripper pose to be parallel to the image plane.
Re claims 24, 31, and 38, Mousavian further teaches wherein the six degrees of freedom correspond to three degrees of freedom for position and three degrees of freedom for orientation (see at least para. 3 for pose which is 3D position and 3D orientation).
Claim(s) 27, 34, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claussen (US 2020/0262064) in view of Nagarajan (US 20190248003) and further in view of Mousavian (US 2021/0138655).
Re claims 27, 34, and 41, modified Claussen is silent regarding, but Mousavian teaches wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to perform image segmentation to identify the object (see at least para. 73 for instance segmentation; see also claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of modified Claussen with the features of Mousavian because it allows the system to determine grasps at an object level and then check the environment for collisions since important parts of an objects geometry may be occluded by other objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
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, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights