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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are pending. Claims 1-23 are rejected.
Amendments to the claims have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues are fully addressed with the new rejections made to the newly provided amendments.
112(b) rejections have been withdrawn based on Applicants amendments.
102 rejections
Claim 9;
Applicant argues that Oleynik does not teach “sampling a plurality of stable grasps”. Examiner strongly disagrees. The rejection used is fully detailed, however just the first few words of para 516; which states sample grabbing [grasps] functions addresses the claim limitations let alone the full functions recited in the rejections. Applicant has made an argument that the sample grabbing in Oleynik is based on a program library. It is noted that claim 9 reads: “ a method for generating a model-free reinform cent learning policy. Appellants specifications para 10 states “the professor and memory, performing: sampling a plurality of stable grasps”. Applicant’s specifications states memory, while the prior art states library. Regardless of the terminology, the program libary of Oleynik must be populated somehow. This population of the library is identical to the theory, performing: sampling a plurality of stable grasps, making the claimed limitations and the prior art identical. Furthermore claim 1 state “a system for generating a model-free reinforcement learning policy, i.e. storing to memory library based on sensory feedback. Grabbing an object is to have a stable grip on the object.
Applicant argues that nowhere in Oleynik discussing of “concerning reorientation of a grasped object about a desired axis of rotation.” Examiner strongly disagrees; the rejection is Also, para 712; adjustments [reorienting] may be required to coordinate left and right hand, arm, or other robotic parts movements. if the object is grasped and in in the robots hands then any adjustments is a reorientation of about a “desired” axis of rotation.
Applicant argues that oleynik fails to disclose “using stable grasps as initial states for collecting training trajectories” It is noted that para 516 was used which teaches provide feedback [collecting training trajectories] mechanism to the robotic hand 72 as a means to grab a non-standardized object; para 692 update database as the objects are moved, consumed or new objects are brought. Data base 690 in Para 690; updates the Case Library with outcome information upon executing the task. If in learning mode, the Central Robotic Control adds new cases to the case library, or alternately deletes cases found to be ineffective.
Regarding “learning finger-gaiting and finger-grasping policies for each axis of ration in the hand coordinate frame based on the proprioceptive sensing in the robotic hand” the rejection used was para 384; a MM can be grasping an egg, comprised of the motor actions required to sense [sensing is learning] the location and orientation [proprioceptive i.e. hand vs egg] of the egg, then reaching out a robotic arm, moving the robotic fingers [finger gaiting and grasping] into the right configuration[each axis of ration in the hand coordinate frame based as its based time i.e. new frame], and applying the correct delicate amount of force for grasping.
Regarding “implementing the finger-gaiting and finger-pivoting policy on the robotic hand.” para 384; a MM can be grasping an egg [implementing a finger-gaiting and finger-pivoting policy of the robotic hand to grasp an egg], comprised of the motor actions required to sense the location and orientation of the egg, then reaching out a robotic arm , moving the robotic fingers into the right configuration [Also implementing finger gaiting and pivoting], and applying the correct delicate amount [Also implementing] of force for grasping [Also implementing]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oleynik US 2019/0291277.
9. A method for generating a model-free reinforcement learning policy for a robotic hand for grasping an object, comprising:
sampling a plurality of stable grasps relevant to reorienting the grasped object about a desired axis of rotation and using stable grasps as initial states for collecting training trajectories; para 516; sample grabbing [grasps] functions 692, 694, 696 the robotic hand 72 can draw from in performing a specific grabbing function, is illustrated in FIG. 15B. FIG. 15B is a block diagram illustrating a library database 690 of standardized operating movements [trajectories], include grabbing, placing, and operating a kitchen tool or a piece of kitchen equipment, with motion/interaction time profiles 698. Also, para 712; adjustments [reorienting] may be required to coordinate left and right hand, arm, or other robotic parts movements.
learning finger-gaiting and finger-grasping policies for each axis of rotation in the hand coordinate frame based on proprioceptive sensing in the robotic hand, and implementing the finger-gaiting and finger-pivoting policy on the robotic hand. para 384; a MM can be grasping an egg, comprised of the motor actions required to sense the location and orientation of the egg, then reaching out a robotic arm, moving the robotic fingers into the right configuration, and applying the correct delicate amount of force for grasping
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the sampling of a plurality of varied stable grasps comprises initializing the grasped object in a random pose and sampling a plurality of fingertip positions of the robotic hand. para 45; near infinite combination, relates to the definition and control of basic behaviors (movements and interactions) of one or more degrees of freedom (movable joints under actuator control) at levels ranging from a single joint (knuckle, etc.) to combinations of joints (fingers and hand, arm, etc.) to ever higher degree of freedom systems (torso, upper-body, etc.)
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the sampling is based on a number of fingertip contacts on the grasped object. Para 497; each finger on the robotic hand 72 has haptic vibration sensors 502a-e and sonar sensors 504a-e on the respective fingertips. [Sensor output is sampling.]
12. The method of claim 9, wherein the finger-gaiting and finger-grasping policies for each axis of rotation are combined. para 516; sample grabbing [grasps] functions [plurality i.e. combined] 692, 694, 696 the robotic hand 72 can draw from in performing a specific grabbing function, is illustrated in FIG. 15B. FIG. 15B is a block diagram illustrating a library database [policies] 690 of standardized operating movements [trajectories], include grabbing, placing, and operating a kitchen tool or a piece of kitchen equipment, with motion/interaction time profiles 698
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the proprioceptive sensing provides current positions and controller set-point positions of the robotic hand. para 501 The shape of the deformable palm will be described using locations of feature points relative to a fixed reference frame, as shown in FIG. 9E. Each feature point is represented as a vector of x, y, and z coordinate positions over time. Feature point locations are marked on the sensing glove worn by the chef and on the sensing glove worn by the robot. A reference frame is also marked on the glove, as illustrated in FIG. 9E. Feature points are defined on a glove relative to the position of the reference frame.
14. The method of claim 9, further comprising providing a reward function associated [para 507 weighted by importance; also reward: adjusting design parameters to improve the score and performance 571] with a critic of a simulator [captured of Chef’s motions; the chef id the simulator] based on the angular velocity [chef’s motions with the robot poses, motions and forces] of a grasped object [preparing food grasp poses] along a desired axis of rotation. [based on chef’s [desired] motions with robot poses [axis of rotation], motions and forces]. It is noted that the arms and fingers are always a grasped object along a desired axis of rotation as the joints are fixed. Also learning mode and iterative.
15. The method of claim 9, further comprising providing a reward function associated with a critic of a simulator [para 507] based on the number of fingertip contacts on a grasped object 507; labeled with [fingertip] points of contact 565 and the separation between a desired and a current axis of rotation. 507; configured to evaluate the robot apparatus configuration for its ability to achieve poses [desired], motions and forces, and to accomplish minimanipulations [current axis of rotation]. Subsequently, the robot apparatus configuration undergoes an iterative process 569 [closer to desired] in assessing the robot design parameters 570, adjusting design parameters to improve the score and performance 571, and modifying the robot apparatus configuration 572.
Claims 1-8 and 16-23 are rejected using the same rejections made to claims 1-8 respectively.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11am.-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664