DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, applicant recited essence claim limitation as the main essence of the invention regarding, “a trajectory of a robot for moving along a path”, “an initial instant…initial point”, “a final instant…final point”, “a continuous map” and “a pluridimensional subspace” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 15 – 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each claim recited are directed to trajectory definition along a path implementing mathematical concept along with mental process, namely mathematical path optimization utilizing cost function computation and algorithm for describing the claim limitation in mathematical sense where the recited claim limitation has not provided with particularly machine exertion nor has the invention transformed a concrete/tangible item into another state or thing where this recited claim limitation is deemed to be performed by human mental mind with/without pen/pencil aid.
Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). I. Mathematical Concepts. The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972);
organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
Further, it is noted that applicant recited claim limitation discussed above also falls into the group of mental process since this recited claim limitation computation could be performed with/without the aid of pen/pencil upon human mind without any physical apparatus.
Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). III. Mental Process. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
In this instant case, applicant recited instant claim 1, for defining the cost function, subspace and trajectory could be implemented via human operator via pen/pencil describing mathematical expression and thus are deemed to be mental process.
Thus, the recited claim invention for trajectory computation using mathematical concept for algorithm computation and mental process are deemed to be an abstract idea that is potentially being implemented by human user/operator without additional element amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, applicant recited claim is deemed to be a mathematical concept algorithm computation and mental process without additional element.
In this instant case, under Step 1, applicant’s claim directs to a method under four categories of the statutory subject matter.
Further, Under Step 2A, Prong One, applicant’s claim directs to an abstract idea for an ineligible concept as the claim recites two of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, (namely mathematical concepts and mental processes) will be considered to recite an abstract idea. Please see at least MPEP 2106.04(a).
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation directs to “method for defining a trajectory…in a multidimensional space…the space coordinates…the trajectory is a continuous map mapping…defining a cost function…defining a pluridimensional subspace…determining a trajectory” are deemed to be trajectory computation for optimization within multidimensional space and subspace in vector algorithm pure mathematical without any computer/generic computer.
Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). I. Mathematical Concepts.
The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972);
organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
Further, applicant recited claim limitation also falls into the group of mental process since this recited claim limitation computation could be performed with/without the aid of pen/pencil upon human mind without any physical apparatus.
Please also see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). III. Mental Process. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
In this instant case, applicant recited instant claim 1, for defining the cost function, subspace and trajectory could be implemented via human operator via pen/pencil describing mathematical expression and thus are deemed to be mental process.
Further, under Step 2A, Prong Two, applicant recited claim limitation also does not recited additional elements where applicant recited claim limitation merely directs a computation method utilizing mathematical equation implementing upon space/subspace without providing in particular machine or transformation in apparatus.
In this instant case, applicant recited method does not further result any machine creation realization nor has any machine apparatus to be transformation in a different state or things yet merely directs human mind exertion. Please also see MPEP 2106.05(a) – 2106.05(c).
In addition, Under Step 2B, it is also noted that applicant recited claim limitation does not further provide an insignificant extra solution activities in conjunction with the abstract idea discussed above and thus also does not result significantly more than judicial exception and to impose additional meaningful limitation where the claim as whole mainly directs to mathematical calculation method for trajectory optimization and human mind exertion.
Regarding dependent claims 16 - 29, applicant recited claim limitation similar to independent claim 15 discussed above are also directs to an abstract idea with mathematical calculation implementing algorithm without reciting significantly more or insignificant extra solution activities within applicant recited claim limitation.
In this instant case, applicant recited claim limitation in claims 16 – 29 limitation recited space/subspace mathematical definition and mathematical cost function definition to further define the mathematical algorithm calculation of independent claim 15 and also does not further provide additional element in concrete tangible or machine transformation.
Further, there is no any processor or specialized computer to perform under recited claim limitation for insignificant extra solution activities and thus are deeded to be ineligible.
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 15-29 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.
It is also noted that dependent claims based upon the rejected claims are also rejected based upon the dependency. In this instant case, claims 16 – 29 are also rejected upon dependency.
Regarding Claim 15, lines 9, applicant recited the limitation “a trajectory” in lines 9 has been previous antecedent recited in lines 1 and “a trajectory” in lines 9 has not supply sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate further clarification is required.
In this instant case, the recited claim term regarding “a trajectory” has been previously debuted in lines 1. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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 (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 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)(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 15 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention over Stouraitis et al (Online Hybrid Motion Planning for Dynamic Collaborative Manipulation via Bilevel Optimization, IEEE Transactions on Robotics. Vol 36. No. 5, Oct 2000).
Regarding claim 15, Stouraitis et al shows a method for defining a trajectory of a robot for moving along a path (See at least Page 1455 III.B. Formation discussed trajectory as time indexed sequence of actions; see also Page 1456. IV.A. Hybrid Motion Preliminaries for robot agent end effector moving along the path)
from an initial point to a final point in a multidimensional space (See equation 19 for function Ck at i+ as the function of ,Ck, velocity of Ck, and, delta T, time increment where Ck is end effector position on Page 1456. IV.A. Hybrid Motion Preliminaries for robot; also on Figure 4 from T0 – T4 in physical space as multidimensional space ),
each of the initial and final points having a plurality of space coordinates (See at least Figure 4 from T0 – T4 in physical space as multidimensional space in coordinate space of (x, z, ꬾ)),
the space coordinates including position and/or orientation coordinates (See at least Figure 4 for coordinate space of (x, z, ꬾ) in x, z position and ꬾ orientation),
the trajectory is a continuous map mapping an initial instant in time to the initial point (See at least Figure 4 from T0 – T4 as a continuous time mapping with initial instant time T0 with pentagon object center provided dot for x, z coordinate and green orientation arrow),
a final instant in time to the final point (See at least Figure 4 from T0 – T4 as a continuous time mapping with final instant time T4 with pentagon object center provided dot for x, z coordinate and green orientation arrow),
intermediate instants in time to intermediate points along the path (See at least Figure 4 from T0 – T4 as a continuous time mapping with intermediate instants time T2 and T3 with pentagon object center provided dot for x, z coordinate and green orientation arrow),
defining a cost function that associates a cost value to a given trajectory (See at least equation 6 for optimized trajectory ζ* defined by cost function c (.) on Page 1456 with cost value of constraint g(.) );
defining a pluridimensional subspace of the multidimensional space (See at least Page 1458 for each contact space on each side of the pentagon object forms pluridimensional subspace of the multidimensional space marked by coordinate; see also figure 7a for contact space/subspace marking with coordinate marking on each pentagon object on figure 7b; also figure 9 for normal vector n in perpendicular w.r.t the space as the subspace as one side of pentagon in vector space happened at contact location);
determining a trajectory that minimizes the cost function among trajectories extending along different paths of the subspace as the trajectory (See at least Page 1455 III. B. Formulation for a few different trajectories/path from all feasible ones with optimal trajectory for the paths of the subspace as the pentagon object forming each side also shown on figure 3 and figure 6).
Regarding claim 16, Stouraitis et al shows the subspace is the multidimensional space (See at least figure 9 for normal vector n in perpendicular w.r.t the space as the subspace as one side of pentagon in vector space in 2D polar coordinate planar space).
Regarding claim 17, Stouraitis et al shows a number of dimensions of the subspace is smaller than a number of dimensions of the multidimensional space (See at least figure 9 for the subspace as one side of pentagon in vector space in 2D polar coordinate planar space and the pentagon itself is in 3 dimensional on figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Stouraitis et al shows the multidimensional space has two position coordinates (See at least claim 16 above for the subspace is the multidimensional space with 2D polar positional coordinate on figure 9) and the robot comprises a vehicle (See at least Page 1465 C. DcM experiment with mobile robot).
Regarding claim 19, Stouraitis et al shows the multidimensional space has three position coordinates (See at least Figure 4 from T0 – T4 in physical space as multidimensional space in coordinate space of (x, z, ꬾ), the robot comprises an end effector (See at least Page 1465 C. DcM experiment with mobile robot with Kuka robot with 3 finger hand).
Regarding claim 20, Stouraitis et al shows the cost function is an increasing function of a time derivative of at least one of the space coordinates, or of a difference between maximum and minimum values assumed by a given coordinate along the given trajectory (See at least equation 8a for cost function c with respect to variable t, dt as derivative of time; summation as the increasing function over time T; summation as min to max with respect to trajectory; also on equation 6).
Regarding claims 21 and 23, Stouraitis et al shows the space coordinate is a speed (See at least figure 3 and Page 1455 for optimized trajectory ζ* as with given current state xt = [yt yt.]T where xt as robot each state upon optimized trajectory based upon xt = [yt yt.]T where yt. as speed of the object based upon the pose of object yi on Page 1459).
Regarding claim 22, Stouraitis et al shows the step of determining the trajectory that minimizes the cost function is carried out under a constraint for a time derivative of at least one of the space coordinates or of a difference between maximum and minimum values assumed by a given coordinate along the given trajectory (See at least equation 8a for cost function c with respect to variable x(t) as space coordinate, dt as derivative of time; summation as the increasing function over time T; summation as min to max with respect to trajectory; also on equation 6).
Regarding claim 24, Stouraitis et al et al shows a condition imposed is an upper limit for the time derivative(See at least equation 6 for summation upper limit as T in variable t w.r.t, dt, time derivative).
Regarding claim 25, Stouraitis et al shows the upper limit is selected so as to keep an amount of energy transferred when the robotic unit collides with a person at rest (See at least Page 1453 for robot agent force aware of the person in collaborative operation as energy transferred) while executing the planned trajectory at a level deemed to bear no risk of injury to the person (See at least figure 3 for amount of energy exerted with robot upon object toward the person in dyadic interaction that is optimized as hybrid motion).
Regarding claim 26, Stouraitis et al a further constraint taken account of in the minimization of the cost function limits a pressing force exercised on a surface by the robotic unit (See at least figure 9b for robot force exerted upon 2D contact surface; also equation 24a for f vector along with normal vector upon surface >= 0; also on equation 6 for cost function c including agent’s policy π.a comprising contact forces on figure 3).
Regarding claim 27, Stouraitis et al shows the constraint imposed is a relation between orientation of the robot and a direction of a vector of time derivatives (See at least figure 9 for robot hand contact force exerted upon the object surface with respect to normal vector n upon the object planar 2D surface; also on equation 24 for contact constraint and friction constraint upon normal vector and tangent vector where force vector with respect to time variable on equation 15),
the vector of time derivatives is perpendicular to a surface of the robotic unit (See at least figure 9 for robot hand contact force exerted upon the object surface with respect to normal vector n upon the object planar 2D surface; also on equation 24 for contact constraint and friction constraint upon normal vector and tangent vector where force vector with respect to time variable on equation 15).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stouraitis et al (Online Hybrid Motion Planning for Dynamic Collaborative Manipulation via Bilevel Optimization, IEEE Transactions on Robotics. Vol 36. No. 5, Oct 2000) in view of Hosek (US Pat No. 6,216,058).
Regarding claim 28, Stouraitis et al shows the constraint imposes an upper limit for a load imposed on robot apparatus driving movement of the robot along the trajectory (See at least Page 1465 C. DcM experiment with mobile robot with Kuka robot with 3 finger hand implementing load task); however, Stouraitis et al does not further specify robot apparatus with actuator.
Hosek et al further shows robot apparatus with actuator (See at least Col 12, lines 30 – 35 for motor as actuator driving robot arm moving along the trajectory).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide robot actuator device, as taught by Hosek for the robot device of Stouraitis in order to achieve robot arm movement, as desired and discussed by both Stouraitis and Hosek as providing known robot motor apparatus of Hosek toward similar robot of Stouraitis in order to yield predictable result.
Regarding claim 29, Stouraitis et al shows the cost function is an increasing function of a load imposed on a robot apparatus driving movement of the robot along the trajectory (See at least equation 19 for cost function C with respect to force load with increasing time interval ΔT along with iterative i+1 increment); Stouraitis et al does not further specify robot apparatus with actuator.
Hosek et al further shows robot apparatus with actuator (See at least Col 12, lines 30 – 35 for motor as actuator driving robot arm moving along the trajectory).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to provide robot actuator device, as taught by Hosek for the robot device of Stouraitis in order to achieve robot arm movement, as desired and discussed by both Stouraitis and Hosek as providing known robot motor apparatus of Hosek toward similar robot of Stouraitis in order to yield predictable result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ian JEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3274. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Abby Lin can be reached at 5712703976. 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.
/Ian Jen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657