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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 10 have been canceled.
Claims 11-16 have been added.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-16 have been rejected.
Priority and Formal Matters
The instant application claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. § 120, 121, or 365(c). Accordingly, the effective filing date for the instant application is 22 September 2021 claiming benefit to PCT/JP2021/034886.
The preliminary amendments to the claims received on 04 March 2024 have been received and are accepted.
Paragraph numbers for the instant specification referenced hereinafter are directed towards the US Publication of the instant Application US20250130562A1.
Objections
SPECIFIATION:
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
While paragraph numbers are not required – the [xxx] paragraph number indications present in the filed specification are inconsistent for the figures between [0012]-[0013] wherein the brackets contain the figure number; paragraph numbering should follow conventional consecutive numbering – see at least p. 8-9 of the originally filed specification
Numerous paragraphs are missing numbers and should follow conventional consecutive numbering – see at least p. 10, 12, 16, etc. of the originally filed specification
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
"This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “the problem setting means “ in claims 4, 5, and 12. The specification provides that the means performed by the constraint condition acquisition device are software modules performed on a general purpose computer (see at least the Figures in Fig. 2 and in ¶ 0043 and ¶ 0067).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-7, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-16 are drawn to a device, system, or method, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites a device for constraint condition acquisition.
Independent claim 9 recites a method for constraint acquisition.
These independent claims recite the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
acquire success time time-series data, which is time-series data pertaining to control over a control target when a predetermined task carried out through the control is successful, and failure time time-series data, which is the time-series data in the case of task failure
acquire a constraint condition template, which is a constraint condition that includes a parameter; and
determine the value of the parameter such that the constraint condition holds in the success time-series data and the constraint condition does not hold in the failure time-series data
Independent claim 7 recites a system for control.
This independent claim recites the following steps best characterized as a mental process under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in general:
acquire an operation to operate the control target
determine whether or not it is necessary to cause the control target to perform an operation different from the operation indicated in the operation; and
[communication information], when it is determined that it is necessary to cause the control target to perform the different operation, information indicating an operation to cause the control target to perform the different operation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitations, these limitations are best characterized as applying a mental process to a generic computing environment - see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2).
Dependent claim 2 recites, in part, exclude from the acquisition target the constraint condition template for which the value of the parameter does not exist such that the constraint condition holds in the success time-series data and the constraint condition does not hold in the failure time-series data, among a plurality of the constraint condition templates.
Dependent claims 3 & 11 recite, in part, set a solution search problem by determining an assignment method of whether to assign multiple constraint conditions in the control of the control target to an objective function in the solution search problem, or to the constraint condition in the solution search problem, depending on the type of the constraint condition, and if the value of the parameter is not determined by the solution search problem that has been set, changes the assignment method to reset the solution search problem; and determine the value of the parameter by solving the set solution search problem.
Dependent claim 4 recites, in part, wherein for multiple inequality constraint conditions in the solution search problem obtained by inputting each of the multiple time-series data into the same inequality constraint condition in the control of the control target, integrates the multiple inequality constraint conditions in the solution search problem into one inequality constraint condition using the maximum value or minimum value for each of the time-series data and time of the functions that constitute those inequality constraint conditions.
Dependent claims 5 & 12 recite, in part, wherein for multiple inequality constraint conditions in the solution search problem, according to the multiple inequality constraint conditions in the control of the control target, integrates multiple functions constituting the inequality constraint condition into a function that approximates the maximum value of each argument value of those multiple function values, or a function that approximates the minimum value of each argument value of those multiple function values, and thereby integrates multiple inequality constraint conditions in the solution search problem into a single inequality constraint condition.
Dependent claims 6 & 13-16 recite, in part, calculate control command information for the control target in order to execute the task under the value of the parameter whose constraint condition is relaxed compared to the determined value of the parameter.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same mental process abstract idea grouping as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements analyzed below in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 1 recites a constraint condition acquisition device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instruction. Claim 7 recites a control system comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions. Claims 4, 5, and 12 recite the problem setting means. The specification provides that the means performed by the constraint condition acquisition device are software modules performed on a general purpose computer (see at least the Figures in Fig. 2 and in ¶ 0043 and ¶ 0067). The use of computer device/system with corresponding hardware only recites computer and hardware as a tool to apply data to an algorithm and report the results (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case involving a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer within the “Other examples.. i.”) amounting to instruction to implement the abstract idea using a general purpose computer. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357 (2014).
Claim 7 recites display… information indicating an operation. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves as display/output of the data determined from the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant post-solution activity that amounts to post-solution output on a well-known display device) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Claim 1 recites a constraint condition acquisition device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instruction. Claim 7 recites a control system comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions. Claims 4, 5, and 12 recite the problem setting means.
Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of the storage mediums to store data, the computer and data processing devices to apply the algorithm, and the display device to display selected results of the algorithm. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A) integrating the evidentiary requirements in making a § 101 rejection as established in Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Claim 7 recites display… information indicating an operation. The courts have decided that presenting generated data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example iv. presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-16 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 11-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. Such language includes:
Independent claims 1 and 9 recite “determine the value of the parameter such that the constraint condition holds in the success time-series data and the constraint condition does not hold in the failure time-series data”. The metes and bounds of the terms “holds in success” and “does not hold in the failure” is unclear.
Dependent claim 2 recites “exclude from the acquisition target the constraint condition template for which the value of the parameter does not exist”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the acquisition target” nor can Examiner make a reasonable inference as to the acquisition target’s function in the claims. Furthermore, Examiner is unsure if the constraint condition template is the same constraint condition template of claim 1 as the constraint condition template MUST include a parameter. Therefore the metes and bounds of “exclude from the acquisition target the constraint condition template for which the value of the parameter does not exist” is unclear.
Dependent claim 3 and 11 recite “set a solution search problem by determining an assignment method of whether to assign multiple constraint conditions in the control of the control target to an objective function”. Examiner is unsure if solution search problem is either (1) further limiting the acquisition of the constraint condition template; (2) the constraint condition parameter determined by the independent claim is the same parameter determined utilizing a disparate methodology of the dependent claim; or (3) the set solution search problem algorithm is utilized in the acquiring of success and failure time-series data as the only reference to the control of the control target is within this limitation of the independent claim. Furthermore, the claims recite “depending on the type of the constraint condition”; there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the type” of the constraint condition or if the type is referring to the condition of the independent claim or the multiple conditions of the dependent.
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein for multiple inequality constraint conditions in the solution search problem” without any recitation establishing inequality constraint conditions the wherein clause is attempting to further limit. The claim fails to establish the “inequality constraint conditions” as a feature of the “multiple constraint conditions” recited in claim 3 on which claim 4 depends. Examiner is uncertain if "inequality constraint conditions" are part of the multiple constraint conditions, or if these are a separate set of constraint conditions. Dependent claim 4 further recites “using the maximum value or the minimum value for each of the time-constraint series data and time of the functions that constitute those inequality constraint conditions”. Examiner is unsure if the maximum and minimum applies to the time of the functions or the antecedent basis for “the functions”.
Dependent claims 5 and 12 recite “wherein for multiple inequality constraint conditions in the solution search problem, according to the multiple inequality constraint conditions in the control of the control target”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the multiple inequality constraint conditions in the control of the control target”. It is unclear if these inequality constraints are the same as the inequality constraints of the solution search problem or distinct inequality constraints. Dependent claims 5 and 12 also recites “the problem setting means integrates multiple functions constituting the inequality constraint condition into a function that approximates the maximum value of each argument value of those multiple function values”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the inequality constraint condition, the maximum value of each argument value, or those multiple function values.
Dependent claims 6 and 13-16 recite “execute the task under the value of the parameter whose constraint condition is relaxed compared to the determined value of the parameter”. The specification defines the term “relaxed” as (1) a complexity of a main constraint condition expression (¶ 0243 and Expression 29-31); (2) less restrictive in access (¶ 0335), or (3) a measure of success or failure of the task (¶ 0037). The term “relaxed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relaxed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Examiner cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claims in view of the indefinites rejections cited. Where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims (see MPEP § 2173.06).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tesch et al., Expensive multiobjective optimization for robotics, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Oct. 17, 2013)[hereinafter Tesch] in view of Barker et al. (US Patent No. 11,016,468)[hereinafter Barker].
As per claim 7, Tesch teaches the following limitations of the claim:
a control system comprising is taught in the § D. Snake Robots on p. 3 (teaching on a snake robot movement control system)
acquire an operation to operate the control target is taught in the § D. Snake Robots on p. 3 (teaching on obtaining a based constrained control trajectory model (treated as synonymous to an operation) for a sidewinding gait)
determine whether or not it is necessary to cause the control target to perform an operation different from the operation indicated in the operation; and is taught in the § III. Optimization Method Overview on p. 3 and § B. Multiple Objective Extensions on p. 4 (teaching on determining via an expected improvement metric to optimize the constrained control trajectory model via a multi-objective search function to deviate from the sidewinding gait)
display, when it is determined that it is necessary to cause the control target to perform the different operation, information indicating an operation to cause the control target to perform the different operation is taught in the § V. Robot Results on p. 5-6 and Fig. 4 on p. 6 (teaching on outputting the updated movement results (treated as information indicating and operation) of the optimize constrained control trajectory model)
Tesch fails to teach the following limitation of claim 7. Barker, however, does teach the following:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to is taught in the Detailed Description incol 5 line 37 - col 6 line 45, col 6 line 46 - col 7 line 9, col 8 line 39 - col 9 line 17, and in the Figures in fig. 2 (teaching on monitoring robotic operational data for time in failure v normal operational state assessments by a computer with a processor and corresponding memory)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the computer and processor of Barker to the movement optimization algorithm of Tesch’s robotic control would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictably a generic hardware configuration for the specific control of a robotic constraints during movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
He et al., Adaptive Neural Network Control of an Uncertain Robot With Full-State Constraints, 46(3) IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 620-629 (March 2016) teaching on a control performance of the closed-loop system for a robotic system with full-state constraints in the § I. Introduction on p. 620-621 and A. MB Control on p. 625
Oyama Hiroyuki (WO2020157862A1) teaching on predicted control of robotic motions for obstacle avoidance using a search pinpoint method for constraint condition determination in lines 1084-1091 and 1059-1065
Lee et al., Constraint Estimation and Derivative-Free Recovery for Robot Learning from Demonstrations, arXiv:1801.10321 (Oct. 16, 2018) teaching on switching policy based boundary dynamics model with a hyperparameter for robotic guidance in boundary control applications in § Introduction on p. 1-2 and in § B. Derivative-Free Recovery Control on p. 4-5
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN LYNN JACKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM 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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights