DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is response to the remark entered on May 29th, 2026.
Claims 15 – 28 are pending in current application.
Claims 15 and 28 are amended.
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.
Drawing
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, the recited essence independent claim 1 limitation regarding, “cause the robot to move from initial point to the final point” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. In this instant case, upon further review, applicant’s attention is directed to figure 1, Para 0023 where applicant’s robot is stationary yet only the end effector equipped with actuator move along the trajectory where this claim limitation is not exhibited in drawing.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “cost function…increasing function of…a mechanical or electrical load…driving movement…the trajectory” does not describe the subject matter in the specification to enable skilled in the art to make and use of the invention which it pertains.
In this instant case, applicant’s attention is directed to applicant’s written description, Para 0017, where states, “ limit for a load imposed on an actuator driving movement of the robotic unit along the trajectory” and Para 0018 “ the cost function will minimize the load over the entire trajectory” as differ and contradict to applicant’s claim limitation as how “the cost function as an increasing function of a mechanical or electrical load…driving movement…along the trajectory”.
In this instant case, the load could not be only increase along the trajectory and only the trajectory to be increased during the movement of the robotic device. Furthermore, applicant’s cost function term directs to velocity and acceleration optimization also does not directs load/power/energy measurement optimization. Appropriate further clarification is required.
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 - 28 is 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 dependency.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recited claim limitation regarding, “cost function…increasing function of…a mechanical or electrical load…driving movement…the trajectory” does not distinctly and particularly set forth for what or which exactly is increased, as whether the load increased, the movement, as cost function term parameter as velocity/acceleration increased or the trajectory increase or the cost term integral over the trajectory increased that ought to be set forth particularly and distinctly with respect to applicant’s invention to ascertain the metes and bounds.
In this instant case, the load could not be only increase along the trajectory and only the trajectory integral to be increased during the movement of the robotic device.
Furthermore, applicant’s cost function term directs to velocity and acceleration optimization yet does not direct to load/power/energy measurement.
Applicant is advised to clarify to ascertain the metes and bounds regards applicant’s invention commensurate with respect to applicant’s claim limitation.
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 15 - 28 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 2020) in view of Hosek (US Pat Pub No. 6,216,058).
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)
the cost function is an increasing function of a mechanical load imposed on an end effector driving movement of the robot along the trajectory (See at least end effector is the actuator where the mechanical load as both robot force actuates upon the end effector and human mechanical force exerted via the cone exhibited on Figure 1; also on at least equation 19 for cost function C with respect to human force load with increasing time interval ΔT along with iterative i+1 movement; also figure 3 below for movement of the robot along the trajectory.
i+
PNG
media_image1.png
354
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
363
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; also on at least equation 19 for cost function C with respect to human force load with increasing time interval ΔT along with iterative i+1 increment);
outputting control signal to cause the robot to move from the initial point to the final point along the determined trajectory ( Please see Page 1455 and 1456 with figure 3 of Stouraitis et al below, where the human manual force input is modeled as input signal toward robot cause robot move along a determined trajectory in equations1, 2 and 4),
PNG
media_image3.png
1175
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
638
1040
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Stouraitis et al does not further specify robot apparatus with actuator.
Hosek et al further shows robot apparatus with actuator to move along the trajectory (See at least Col 12, lines 30 – 35 for motor as actuator driving robot arm moving along the trajectory) and control signal to the actuator move along the trajectory.
Note and Motivation Statement
It is also further noted that Hosek et al were provided at Year 2001, 25 years ago, at time of filing utilizing well known control system cost function parameter as in velocity and acceleration as the same w.r.t applicant’s cost function state input and cost term where all of Stouraitis, Hosek and applicant’s invention aims to provide trajectory optimization.
The cost function parameter as velocity and acceleration state input has been well known exhibited by the reference list in conclusion below under cost function design along with as one well-known supplement for the design of Stouraitis in cost function supplemental where the time and actuator load optimization is merely a vary design choice in cost function term as discussed above/exhibited below.
Further, in a general and broadest reasonable sense, the actuator of Stouraitis could also be the human operation input force load exerted upon the turning cone serving as an actuator exhibited on figure above;
However, upon further consideration, skilled in the art provided Hosek for Stouraitis exhibited a fundamental actuator previously that is to be optimized in similar manner in velocity and acceleration commensurate to applicant’s invention for the trajectory optimization of Stouraitis.
In addition, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Please also see MPEP 2141. In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,"Id. at 415, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious.
Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that "[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."Id. at 415-16, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
The Supreme Court stated that there are "[t]hree cases decided after Graham [that] illustrate this doctrine." Id. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (1) "In United States v. Adams,.. . [t]he Court recognized that when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." Id. (2) "In Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.,.. . [t]he two [pre-existing elements] in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation." Id. at 416-17, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. (3) "[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived .. . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.).
The principles underlining these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent application claiming the combination of elements of prior art would have been obvious. The Supreme Court further stated that:
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious.
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See also Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 25 F.4th 1354, 1365, 2022 USPQ2d 144 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (stating that a determination of obviousness "requires ‘identify[ing] a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does’" (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1395). Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Thus, 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 inexplicitly stated robot movement trajectory apparatus and 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 in both desired trajectory optimization in both Stouraitis in view of Hosek in the same field of endeavor.
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 mult2idimensional 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).
Claims 28 is 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 2020) 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.
Response to Argument
In response to applicant’s remark that Stouraitis does not teach altering the cost function itself to increase with an internal motor load;
however, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate and comprehensive.
In this instant case, a cost function itself is merely a compensation function to attenuate the gain that exerted upon the robotic system where the cost function itself would not be able to increase the load but only minimize the deviation/optimize the desired load.
It is the robotic system itself increase the motor load as the system response optimization, not cost function.
In analogy, the cost function is an optimization controller yet the load increased is done by the robot motor, not cost function.
Please also see attached linear quadratic regulator, LQR, attached similar with applicant’s equation both utilizing transpose matrix, weight matrix with state space modeling upon X2.dot acceleration matrix for integral cost along with pertinent prior art listed below in conclusion section.
In this instance, the output of the cost function is an attenuation gain for the system motor based upon the weight matrix for cost function but does not increase the load itself. Thus, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate and comprehensive.
Further, applicant recited claim limitation does not commensurate the technical substance of a cost function. In this instant case, a cost function is an increase/decrease function utilizing the weight matrix output exerted upon the motor/system based upon feedback input.
If the cost function is merely an increasing function of the gain as recited or only capable of increasing the load upon robotic motor, the cost function with robotic system is deemed to be an open loop system as recited, and only increasing the motor load would further cause overload eventually resulting the motor/actuator system malfunction.
In further, applicant is advised to clarify how could and why applicant’s cost function capable of increasing the load throughout the trajectory as an “increasing function for load” as constantly increasing contradict with applicant’s written description in subsequent reply response? since applicant’s equation also utilizing weighting matrix and velocity/acceleration cost term parameter optimization.
In addition, applicant’s invention, as the primary purpose, aims to minimize the risk of injury for collision as discussed on Para 0014 of applicant’s application publication along with amount of energy threshold, how could the risk of collision being minimized while the load exerted on the robot continuously increasing during the course of trajectory and had collision?
Furthermore, upon further review, applicant’s written description on Para 0033 and 0034 states, “measure of the driving power consumed for the movement…” also does not particularly commensurate with applicant’s equation 3 nor does not it provide an increasing function of the a mechanical/electrical load.
In this instant case, the cost function exhibited in equation 3 only directs to optimization of load upon the robotic system utilizing the velocity and acceleration parameters and weight matrix where the cost function itself also does not measure actual driving power consumed upon the motor load nor does the cost function itself provide increasing of the load accumulation yet only provides a weight matrix adjusting cost function output correspondingly without actual power measurement.
The closest term relating to the measurement of the load in cost function directs to applicant’s equation in Para 0043 where measures the rate of the change of torque, yet this cost term utilized also does not measure load but only measures a kinetics quantity, velocity and acceleration, with weighting matrix for cost measure.
Thus, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate for “cost function itself increase the load as an increasing function…of the load”.
In this instant case, applicant’ attention is further direct to Stouraitis in view of Hosek; where it is Stouraitis in view of Hosek shows applicant recited claim limitation regarding cost function is an increasing function of a load imposed on actuator driving movement of the robot along the trajectory but not Stouraitis along.
It is instant case, Hosek shows the motor that capable to receive the load cost function implementable for load optimization as similar with applicant’s invention utilizing kinematics parameters in position, velocity and acceleration for robotic motor implementable of Hosek, similar to applicant’s cost parameter, upon the cost function of Stouraitis as input parameter.
It is also noted to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, applicant’s remark sates that Hosek does not shows the actuator load as quantity to be minimized in the cost function along with cost function as an increasing function;
However, applicant’s attention is directed to Stouraitis in view Hosek where it is Stouraitis in view Hosek provides applicant recited claim limitation rather than Hosek along.
It is also noted to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this instant case, Hosek shows the motor actuator that is implementable upon the cost function of Stouraitis achieving the cost function optimization.
It is also noted that applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the actuator load as quantity to be minimized) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In this instant case, applicant’s attention is directed to Page 6 above where Stouraitis in view Hosek exhibited applicant newly recited claim limitation regarding, “the cost function is an increasing function…load imposed on an actuator driving movement of the robot along the trajectory”.
In further, applicant’s remark states Stouraitis does not shows adding an internal actuator load based cost term.; however, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate and compressive;
In this instant case, applicant’s attention is directed to Page 16 above where applicant’s cost function discussed above where applicant’s cost function term directs to velocity and acceleration term but does not provide load term and further attenuates the robot system utilizing the gain matrix output.
Furthermore, applicant’s remark states that the new cost would compete contradict Stouraitis’s objective; however, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate.
In this instant case, merely adding a new term or modify cost function term does not necessary render the contradict or compete the system of Stouraitis or Hosek.
The cost term is merely a design choice for the cost function as in variation of choice.
Please also see attached below references, Brwon et al, US Pat Pub No. 2010/0192593, Para 0033 for cost function LQR compare with applicant’s cost function; Abbaszadeh et al, US Pat Pub No. 2020/0362819, Para 0037 for cost function compare with applicant’s cost function; Liu et al, US Pat Pub No. 2020/0278686, Para 0076 for cost function in summation form since discrete time sampling compare with applicant’s cost function and Lee et al, US Pat Pub No. 21013/0173059, see at least Para 0057 for cost function for LQR control compare with applicant’s cost function where each attached reference listed exhibited a various design of the cost function utilizing different cost function term differ from applicant’s invention and among each other yet designed under the same underlying LQR controller design principle similar to applicant’s invention.
It is also noted to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instant case, applicant is advised to consider Stouraitis and Hosek as a whole rather than Stouraitis or Hosek along.
In further, applicant’s attention is further directed to MPEP 2143.01 where states “the court stated that "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." Id.
In affirming the Board’s obviousness rejection, the court held that the prior art as a whole suggested the desirability of the combination of shoe sole limitations claimed, thus providing a motivation to combine, which need not be supported by a finding that the prior art suggested that the combination claimed by the applicant was the preferred, or most desirable combination over the other alternatives. Id. See also In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244, 117 USPQ2d 1499, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The applicant argued that modifying the primary reference in the manner suggested by the secondary reference would forego the benefits taught by the primary reference, thereby teaching away from the combination. The court held that both prior art references "suggest[ed] that hydrolysis time may be adjusted to achieve different fiber properties. Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process or a dietary fiber product with undesirable properties." (emphasis in original)).
The court agreed that the first reference, which stressed simplicity of structure and taught emulsification of the debris, did not teach away from the addition of a channel for the recovery of the debris.). Similarly, in Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court stated "[a]lthough modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citation omitted)).
In this instant case, each references discussed above exhibits similar alternative LQR controller design that is similar to applicant’s cost function where each cost term is differ yet aims for the system control optimization for each and every reference including applicant’s cost function.
In further, applicant’s states that recited reference directed to hindsight reasoning since Stouraitis or Hosek directs to different problems as lead to hindsight reasoning and questioned why would skilled in the art to combine actuator load minimization to Stouraitis with Hosek;
however, applicant’s remark does not particularly accurate and in this instant case, it is noted that Hosek et al were provided at Year 2001, 2.5 decades ago, where Hosek et al at the time of the invention of the trajectory optimized utilizing the very similar term with applicant’s invention in kinetics term, velocity and acceleration, along with motor as a well-known supplement till now as for the design supplement of Stouraitis, in year 2020, as also very similar to applicant’s invention as technology further developed into 3 dimensional variable trajectory planning.
Thus, both Stouraitis or Hosek is not aiming for different problems, they are both aiming for robot trajectory optimization where the time optimization and actuator load optimization is merely a vary design choice in cost function term as discussed above/exhibited in below utilizing cost function term.
Therefore, the combination is not hindsight reasoning since Stouraitis is facilitated upon the Hosek at the time of invention.
In a general and border sense, the end effector of Stouraitis could also be the human operation input force load exerted via the turning cone exhibited on figure 1;
However, upon further consideration, skilled in the art provided Hosek for Stouraitis exhibited a fundamental actuator previously that is to be optimized in similar manner in velocity and acceleration commensurate to applicant’s invention for the trajectory optimization of Stouraitis.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In addition, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It is also noted that applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Benosman et al, US Pat Pub No. 2022/0308530, shows a robot controller for a moveable robot, either industrial with gripper or mobile base, utilizing cost function in LQR design Para 0067, Para 0090 - 0094 for time iteration with trajectory, Para 0058 – 0060 discussed optimal trajectory design, with conditional boundary.
Brwon et al, US Pat Pub No. 2010/0192593, see at least Para 0033 for cost function LQR compare with applicant’s cost function.
Abbaszadeh et al, US Pat Pub No. 2020/0362819, see at least para 0037 for cost function compare with applicant’s cost function.
Liu et al, US Pat Pub No. 2020/0278686, Para 0076 for cost function in summation form since discrete time sampling compare with applicant’s cost function.
Lee et al, US Pat Pub No. 21013/0173059, see at least Para 0057 for cost function for LQR control compare with applicant’s cost function.
Gupta, US Pat Pub No. 2017/0291638, see at least Para 0041 for cost function for LQR controller compare with applicant t’s cost function.
Weiss et al, US Pat Pub No. 2017/0269610, see at least Para 0084 for cost function compare with applicant’s cost function.
Wu et al, US Pat Pub No. 2023/0312143, Para 0099 for cost function compare with applicant’s cost function.
Sternheim, US Pat Pub No. 2022/0097872, Para 0036 for cost function.
Blanding et al, US pat Pub No. 2019/0127049, Para 0115 for cost function in discrete time.
Brand, US Pat Pub No. 2003/0193509, Para 00046 – 0048 for cost function.
Shue et al, US Pat Pub No. 2008/0097658, cost function on Para 0043.
Yang et al, US Pat Pub No. 2013/0310981, see at least Para 0026 for cost function.
Nagarajan et al, US Pat Pub No. 2016/0088469.
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 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
Prosecution Insights