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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/787,513 filled on 07/29/2024.
Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-17, the line number (i.e., 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25) on the left column should apparently be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble “In a robotic environment having a task object represented by a 3D surface, a method for planning a coverage path, comprising: “ should apparently be “A[[a]] method for planning a coverage path in a robotic environment having a task object represented by a 3D surface, comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the preamble “In a robotic environment having a task object represented by a 3D surface, a system for planning a coverage path, comprising: “ should apparent be “A[[a]] system for planning a coverage path in a robotic environment having a task object represented by a 3D surface, comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 11, the acronym word, "3D" should be presented for what it stands for. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, 15 and 17, the phrase “3 dimensional” should apparently be “3-dimensional” for consistency of wording of the phrase in the claim(s).
Regarding claim 5, “i:” on line 6 to be corrected as “i[[:]].”, “ii:” to be “ii[[:]].” And “iii:” to be “iii[[:]].”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Specification, in page 1, cites Fig. 2A-2B. However, the drawings, Figs. 2 is not labeled with Fig. 2A and Fig. 2B.
b. The claimed touch TFT screen 53 to be presented/shown in drawing, Fig. 1 and/or 2 and to be labeled with “touch TFT screen 53”.
c. 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 rendering device in claim 11 must be shown on drawing(s) or the feature(s)to be 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 USC § 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 14-17 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 14 recites “A computer program employing program code. Considering the open ended definition of the computer program and program code, it is computer software per se and is not a "process," a "machine," a "manufacture" or a "composition of matter," as defined in 35 USC § 101. In order to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection, the applicants are advised to amend the claim 14 limitations as “A computer program embodying program code on A[[a]] non-transitory computer readable storage medium [[that]] having stored therein program product comprising program code, which when executed by a processor, performs steps for implementing a method for planning a robotic coverage path over a task object, the method comprising:”, and regarding claims 15-17, the preamble “The program code of claim 14” to be “The non-transitory computer storage medium of claim 14”.
Claims 15-17 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
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 1-17 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.
Analysis (Claim 1)
Step 1: Statutory Category-Yes
The claim 1 is directed to "A method”. Therefore, the claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicially Exception Recited-Yes
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in 2019 PEG, claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim 1 recites the limitations of: a method for planning a coverage path, comprising:
receiving a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system, the task object defined by a surface;
evaluating the task object for determining a feasibility of a coverage pattern, the coverage pattern defining a continuous traversal of the surface; and
computing a coverage path for traversing the surface according to the coverage pattern, the coverage path defined by a uv coordinate set representing the surface. The highlighted elements above are considered to be directed to mental processes, such as, “determining” and “computing” steps above are steps encompass a mental process after analysis of receiving/gathering a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system, encompasses a mental process as it could be done by pen and paper based on gathered data. Therefore, the highlighted limitation above, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mental process but for the recitation of the underlined limitations above, where the underline limitations are referred to data gathering, and is insignificant extra solution activity. That is, other than reciting the underlined limitations above, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mental process.
Step 2A—Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application-No
The claim recites additional elements, such as, “receiving a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system” to perform “evaluating” and “computing” steps. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e.., as a general means of gathering data that represents the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system for using in the evaluating, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept-No
Claims 1 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving/gathering data in is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea based on similar rationale since no feature in the claims alter the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 1-10 are ineligible UNDER 35 USC 101 and are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Analysis (Claim 14)
Step 1: Statutory Category-No
The claim 14 is directed to "A computer program”.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicially Exception Recited-Yes
The claim 14 recites the limitations of: A computer program embodying program code on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that, when executed by a processor, performs steps for implementing a method for planning a robotic coverage path over a task object, the method comprising: receiving a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system, the task object defined by a surface; evaluating the task object for determining a feasibility of a coverage pattern, the coverage pattern defining a continuous traversal of the surface; and computing a coverage path for traversing the surface according to the coverage pattern, the coverage path defined by a uv coordinate set representing the surface. The highlighted elements above are considered to be directed to mental processes, such as, “planning”, “evaluation” and “computing” steps above are steps encompass a mental process, where “evaluation” and “computing” steps are after analysis of receiving/gathering a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system, encompasses a mental process as it could be done by pen and paper based on gathered data. Therefore, the highlighted limitation above, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mental process but for the recitation of the underlined limitations above, where the underline limitations “receiving” step is referred to data gathering, and is insignificant extra solution activity. That is, other than reciting the underlined limitations above, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mental process.
Step 2A—Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application-No
The claim recites additional elements, such as, “receiving a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system” to perform “evaluating” and “computing” steps. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e.., as a general means of gathering data that represents the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system for using in the evaluating, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The other additional elements, such as “A computer program embodying program code on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that, when executed by a processor”, no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept-No
Claims 14 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving/gathering data in is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional. The claim is ineligible. The additional elements, “A computer program embodying program code on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that, when executed by a processor” is recited as high level of generality and merely automates the receiving, evaluation and computing steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea, doesn’t use the judicial exception in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This additional limitation is no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a computer. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 15-17 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea based on similar rationale since no feature in the claims alter the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 14-17 are ineligible UNDER 35 USC 101 and are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Analysis (Claim 11)
Step 1: Statutory Category-Yes
The claim 11 is directed to "A system”.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Judicially Exception Recited-Yes
The claim 11 recites the limitations of: a system for planning a coverage path, comprising:
an interface for receiving a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system, the task object defined by a surface;
a server having an application and processor for evaluating the task object for determining a feasibility of a coverage pattern, the coverage pattern defining a continuous traversal of the surface; and
a rendering device for outputting a computed coverage path for traversing the surface according to the coverage pattern, the coverage path defined by a uv coordinate set representing the surface.
The highlighted elements above are considered to be directed to mental processes, such as, “planning”, “evaluation” steps above are steps encompass a mental process, where “outputting” step is a post solution activity and could be presented on paper with a pen after an analysis of receiving/gathering a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system. Therefore, the highlighted limitation above, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mental process but for the recitation of the underlined limitations above, where the underline limitations “receiving” step is referred to data gathering, and is insignificant extra solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The other additional elements, such as “A system, an interface, a server having an application and processor”, no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application-No
The claim recites additional elements, such as, “receiving a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system” to perform “evaluating” and “computing” steps. The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e.., as a general means of gathering data that represents the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system for using in the evaluating, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The other additional elements, such as “A system, an interface, a server having an application and processor”, no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept-No
Claims 11 is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving/gathering data in is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, a conclusion that the receiving step is well-understood, routine, conventional. The claim is ineligible. The additional elements, The other additional elements, such as “A system, an interface, a server having an application and processor” is recited as high level of generality and merely automates the receiving, evaluation and outputting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea, doesn’t use the judicial exception in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This additional limitation is no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a computer. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 12-13 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea based on similar rationale since no feature in the claims alter the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 11-13 are ineligible UNDER 35 USC 101 and are rejected under 35 USC § 101.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) 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(s) is/are: “rendering device” in Claim 11 has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-13 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the phrases “rendering device”, is limitations that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification is devoid of adequate structure for rendering device to perform the claim function. The specification, in page 1, cited “the 3-D representation 110, typically defined in a Cartesian-based system, is received by a server 120 having a path coverage and planning application 130 (application). Appropriate peripherals and UI (user interface) devices, such as rendering screens 122 and keyboards 124, may also be invoked. However, it is not clear whether the claimed “rendering device” is referred to “rendering screens 122”. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claims 12-13 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above from the 112(f) interpretation and 112 (b) rejection, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure for rendering device to perform the corresponding claimed function in claim 11. The specification, in page 1, cited “the 3-D representation 110, typically defined in a Cartesian-based system, is received by a server 120 having a path coverage and planning application 130 (application). Appropriate peripherals and UI (user interface) devices, such as rendering screens 122 and keyboards 124, may also be invoked. The specification fails to clearly link whether the claimed “rendering device” is same as “rendering screen 122” as discussed above. Additionally, the specification fails to further define particulars for rendering screen 122. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, the claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 12-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), by virtue of their dependency on the base claim.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and written to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and claims/drawings/specification objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 5, the closest prior arts, Embery et al. (US 2023/0202115 A1, this reference is from IDS) and Lawrence et al. (US 2016/0016312 A1) fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “wherein computing the uv grid further comprises: receiving the representation as a 3-dimensional polygon mesh defining a non- intersecting free form surface; locating an axis and a curve on the free form surface, and performing at least one of: i: computing a surface of translation based on a translation of the curve along the axis ii : computing a surface of rotation based on a rotation around the axis; and iii: computing a surface of translation and rotation from the curve such that rotations along the surface are parallel to the axis and translations of the curve are on a plane normal to the axis. ” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1 and intervening claim 4.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 4, 6-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Embery et al. (US 2023/0202115 A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Embery) in view of Lawrence et al. (US 2016/0016312 A1) (hereinafter Lawrence).
Claim 1. Embery et al. (US 2023/0202115 A1, this reference is from IDS) teaches in a robotic environment having a task object represented by a 3D surface (See Abstract, and/or Para. [0042], “3D contour of an object to be worked on”), a method for planning a coverage path (See Para. [0055]-[0060], “2D tool path that defines relative movements between the nozzle and the unfolded surface as it is treated”), comprising:
receiving a representation of the task object in a 3-dimensional coordinate system, the task object defined by a surface (See Para. [0005], [0042], discloses “obtaining a digital 3D shape representation that defines the characteristics of the 3D object”, and see Para. [0047], discloses “object is presented on 3D co-ordinate space”);
evaluating the task object for determining a feasibility of a coverage pattern (See Para. [0056], “generate the 2D toolpath to efficiently and evenly traverse the 2D surface and apply the treatment in the manner desired”, and see Para. [0060], “The computerized device processes the 2D tool path to generate electronic data (3D tool path data) representing the movement of the tool in 3D space that defines relative movements between the tool and the real object in order to correctly treat the surface); and
computing a coverage path for traversing the surface according to the coverage pattern see Para. [0060], “The computerized device processes the 2D tool path to generate electronic data representing the movement of the tool in 3D space), the coverage path defined by a uv coordinate set representing the surface (See Para. [0057], discloses “The tool path may be represented by a variety of different mathematically-conventional ordered formats, for example, line segments, vectors or coordinates”, where in para. [0046]-[0047], discloses “UV coordinate for 2D representation of object’s surface).
Nevertheless, Embery fails to teach, the coverage pattern defining a continuous traversal of the surface.
However, Lawrence et al. (US 2016/0016312 A1) teaches, the coverage pattern defining a continuous traversal of the surface (See Para. [0123], Fig. 9, discloses “a continuous set of surface manifold coordinates labeled as either coverage path or travel path” , and see Fig. 2, “coverage path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Embery with a provision of continuous coverage path and/or travel path as taught by Lawrence in order for a smoother transitions that maximize active processing time.
Claim 2. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising receiving the task object as a wireframe representation of triangles defined by nodes and vertices in a 3-dimensional cartesian system (See Embery, Para. [0042], “a digital 3D shape representation is obtained or produced and this defines the 3D contour of an object to be worked on. It may be expressed in terms of a boundary representation defining a 3D mesh, composed of a plurality of subset triangular or other-shaped mesh cells”, same as claimed).
Claim 3. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the method of claim 1 wherein determination of the feasibility further comprises:
identifying task constraints, the task constraints based on kinematics of a robot for movement along an entirety of the uv coordinate system representing the surface of the task object (See Lawrences, Para. [0101], “creating a two dimensional representation of the surface which can be contiguously “traversed” by the end effector by means of adjacent joint states. It effectively transforms the three dimensional surface geometry at a given surface cell into a corresponding manipulator joint state”, and Para. [0109], [0272], “The end result is a collection of Solution Manifolds over the target surface which can be arbitrarily large, depending on the complexity of the surface geometry and the nature of the manipulator's kinematic workspace. The resulting Solution Manifolds are sorted by size, and a selection of the largest are processed according to a valuation algorithm which combines: [0110] The current processing requirements for each reachable cell, essentially rewarding coverage of cells that require further processing, with [0111] Proximity to the initial manipulator state, which biases the manifold selection process away from solutions that require extraneous arm motions”); and
identifying manipulator constraints, the manipulator constraints indicative of a manipulator coupled to the robot attaining placement within a predetermined offset distance of the surface of the task object (See Lawrences Para. [0051], [0055], [0222]-[0223], discloses the general conditions of the claimed invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Embery with a kinematic workspace for arm motions as taught by Lawrences in order to a provision of continuous coverage path and/or travel path as taught by Lawrence in order for planning movements and poses of said one or more robotic manipulators to maximize coverage of said surface.
Claim 4. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising computing a uv grid on the surface from the representation of the task object (See Embery, Para. [0045], “he computerized device uses the 3D subset data to generate digital data (2D subset data) that represents the corresponding 3D portion of the object when laid out flat (i.e. a 2D representation), e.g., when “unfolded”. This may for example be achieved by subjecting the 3D subset data to a UV unwrapping process running on the computerized device”), the representation being a 3-dimensional free form surface and the uv grid defining the surface of the task object (See Embery, Para. [0047], “The 2D representation incorporates data that represents 2D co-ordinate axes, typically designated axis U and axis V”).
Claim 6. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising, upon determining the feasibility of a coverage pattern, computing the coverage path for defining a continuous traversal of the surface of the task object relative to the uv coordinate set (See Embery, Para. [0057], “A raster type 2D toolpath (i.e., traversing in, for example, the X axis, then indexing one pixel in the Y axis) is an example of a toolpath known to those skilled in the art that may be so generated. The tool path may be represented by a variety of different mathematically-conventional ordered formats, for example, line segments, vectors or coordinates.”, and Lawrences, Para. [0123], Fig. 9, discloses “a continuous set of surface manifold coordinates labeled as either coverage path or travel path” , and see Fig. 2, “coverage path”).
Claim 7. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising performing a singularity detection by computing whether a raster scan along the coverage path follows an unbroken continuous sequence along a uv coordinate set representing the surface (See Embery, Para. [0057], “A raster type 2D toolpath where the tool path may be represented by a variety of different mathematically-conventional ordered formats, for example, line segments, vectors or coordinates, where in Para. [0046]-[0047], discloses “UV coordinate for 2D representation of object’s surface). ”).
Claim 8. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the coverage path defines an even discretization of points on the uv grid defining the surface (See Embery, Para. [0011], “registers each 2D sub-surface with a respective segment of the toolpath;”, and Para. [055]-[0059], “the computerized device processes the overall 2D skin data to generate electronic data (2D tool path data) representing a 2D tool path that defines relative movements between the nozzle and the unfolded surface as it is treated.”, and Para. [0047], “the computerized device generates data that identifies (notionally locates) parts of the 3D representation, and elements relevant to 3D co-ordinate space are systematically adjusted or converted to generate data that identifies (notionally locates) the same parts in 2D co-ordinate space. The 2D representation incorporates data that represents 2D co-ordinate axes, typically designated axis U and axis V, hence the term “UV unwrapping”. Additionally, see, Lawrences, Para. [0107], discloses “smooth surface geometry that eliminates the majority of quantization artifacts that naturally occur in discretized models such as the surface patch representation discussed above”).
Claim 9. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the method of claim 4 further comprising:
computing an initial curve including a set of points on the uv grid (See Embery, Fig. 1, Para. [0011], discloses “mesh constituting UV grid as claimed”);
selecting a raster pattern type for traversing the surface relative to the initial curve (See Embery, Para. [0050], [0064], “The outline of each of the mesh islands is shown, with the lines across them representing the path of a tool in 2D space required to treat them correctly. The lines represent a rastering strategy”); and
computing the coverage path by applying the selected raster pattern type to the surface at successive equidistant passes for attaining complete coverage of the surface (See Embery, Fig, 1 and/or Fig. 4, “3D mesh in 2D space” constitutes the claimed invention).
Claim 10. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising:
computing a plurality of coverage regions on the surface (See Embery, Para. [0011], discloses “2D sub-surfaces, and registers each 2D sub-surface with a respective segment of the toolpath”);
selecting the raster pattern for each coverage region (See Embery, Para. [0057], [0064], “a 2D toolpath is generated by applying a rastering strategy and the tool path for the 2D representation is characterized as a collection of smaller tool path segments where each segment deals with the treatment applied to a separate portion of the surface”); and
computing a transition path between the coverage region (See Embery, Para. [0005], “using the computerized device to generate a digital 2D tool path representation defining movements [i.e., transition path] that an applicator or removal tool would have to take to treat the surface [i.e., coverage region] of the shape defined by the 2D shape representation”)”.
Claim 11 is a system claim corresponding to the methos claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing inly in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 11 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim 12. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the system of claim 11 wherein the interface is configured for receiving the task object as a wireframe representation of triangles defined by nodes and vertices in a 3 dimensional cartesian system (See Embery, Para. [0042], “a digital 3D shape representation is obtained or produced and this defines the 3D contour of an object to be worked on. It may be expressed in terms of a boundary representation defining a 3D mesh, composed of a plurality of subset triangular or other-shaped mesh cells”, same as claimed).
Claim 13. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the system of claim 12 wherein the application is further configured for computing a uv grid on the surface from the representation of the task object, the representation being a 3 dimensional free form surface and the uv grid defining the surface of the task object (See Embery, Para. [0042], discloses “3D contour of an object to be worked on”, and see Para. [0047], “The 2D representation incorporates data that represents 2D co-ordinate axes, typically designated axis U and axis V”. Furthermore, see Embery, Para. [0060], [0062], discloses “the 3D object space to be worked on”)
Claim 14 relates to a computer program corresponding to method claim 1 and substantially the same technical feature as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 14 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim 15. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the program code of claim 14, wherein the method further comprises receiving the task object as a wireframe representation of triangles defined by nodes and vertices in a 3 dimensional cartesian system (See Embery, Para. [0042], “a digital 3D shape representation is obtained or produced and this defines the 3D contour of an object to be worked on. It may be expressed in terms of a boundary representation defining a 3D mesh, composed of a plurality of subset triangular or other-shaped mesh cells”, same as claimed).
Claim 17. The teaching of Embery as modified by the teaching of Lawrences teaches the program code of claim 14, wherein the method further comprises computing a uv grid on the surface from the representation of the task object, the representation being a 3 dimensional free form surface and the uv grid defining the surface of the task object (See Embery, Para. [0042], discloses “3D contour of an object to be worked on”, and see Para. [0047], “The 2D representation incorporates data that represents 2D co-ordinate axes, typically designated axis U and axis V”. Furthermore, see Para. [0060], [0062], discloses “the 3D object space to be worked on”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657