DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that Pandya does not teach all the limitations of the amended claims and therefore a new ground of rejection is made in view of the amendments. However, Examiner disagrees that Pandya does not teach generating the first and second new states, which are rejected in further detail below.
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(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pandya (US 2021/0205992) in view of Diankov (US 10,335,947).
Re claim 1, Pandya teaches a control device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (storage device 204); and
a processor configured to execute the instructions (processors 202) to:
generate a state sequence including a plurality of states from a state at a movement source to a state at a movement destination of a physical object (see at least para. 44 for deriving planned trajectory for operating robot to move target object from start location to task location; see at least para 52 for the planned trajectory includes planned waypoints which can indicate changes in direction or speed);
determine the occurrence of an error in an operation of a robot based on a result of comparing the state of the generated state sequence with a state of the physical object during the operation of the robot operating according to the state sequence, and determining that the error has occurred
generate a first new state that is one of states between a state of the physical object in which the error has occurred and one of the plurality of states, in a case where the processor determines that the error has occurred (see at least para. 51 and Fig. 5B wherein the error occurs at current location 406 and a plurality of updated waypoints 532 are generated between the current location 406 and task location 116);
generate a second new state, based on the first new state, between a state of the physical object in which the error has occurred and a movement destination (updated waypoints 532 comprises of a plurality of waypoints and indications of a change in movement or speed and thus are based on any previous waypoints); and
change the state sequence so that a recovery operation for recovering from the error is performed in a case where the processor determines that the error has occurred, changing the state sequence comprising: in a case where the processor determines that the error has occurred, moving the physical object from a state of the physical object in which the error has occurred to the one of the plurality of the states; and further moving the physical object from the one of the plurality of the states to the movement destination (see at least para. 50 for dynamically adjust the planned trajectory when tracked information deviates from operating conditions and/or matches an adjustment condition by updating/replacing one or more waypoints to retain the planned path of travel; see also para. 61 for updated waypoints may coincide with planned waypoints; bridge circuit 304 implements tasks and adjustment to the asks by controlling robot).
Pandya is not explicit regarding, but Diankov teaches determining an error where a result exceeds a predetermined value (see at least col. 16, ln. 37-44, for comparing the measured grip to a predetermined threshold to determine whether the grip is sufficient to continue manipulating the object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Pandya with the features of Dianov because it enables a robotic system to determine when the grip on a target object is likely to fail and execute a responsive action in response to prevent dropping the object.
Re claim 2, Pandya further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: generate a control signal based on the new state and control the robot so that the robot moves the physical object to the movement destination based on the generated control signal (see at least para. 59-61 for deriving updated waypoints to complete task; bridge circuit 304 implements tasks and adjustment to the asks by controlling robot).
Re claim 3, Pandya further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to identify a current actual state related to movement from the movement source to the movement destination based on at least one of the control signal and a state of the robot (see at least para. 49 for the reported data is feedback data from the robot).
Re claim 4, Pandya further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
estimate a current state related to movement of the physical object based on the state sequence; and determine the occurrence of the error based on a result of comparing a current actual state related to movement from the movement source to the movement destination with a current state related to movement of the physical object (see at least para. 49 for track error state of implementation of planned trajectory based on comparing reported data to expected status/progress of planned trajectory; see at least para. 54 for collision event with another object/structure).
Re claim 5, Pandya further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
identify a current actual state related to movement from the movement source to the movement destination based on an image obtained by imaging the physical object (see at least para. 30 for using images to determine target object, start location, and task location).
Re claim 6, modified Pandya teaches the control device of claim 1
Pandya further discloses a robot configure to operate in accordance with control of the control device (robotic system 100).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above for being directed towards similar subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNA MOMPER can be reached at (571) 270-5788. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT T NGUYEN/PRIMARY EXAMINER, Art Unit 3619