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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 21-39 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 21-39 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.
Regarding claims 21 and 30, it is unclear and indistinct what is meant by the term “indicted”. As best understood, it appears that the intended meaning is “indicated” or something similar.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner. Any claim not explicitly rejected under this heading is rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-27 and 30-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cesic et al. (US 2022/0121837).
Regarding claim 21:
Cesic teaches a system for localizing infrastructure (see at least abstract, ¶0002), comprising:
a mobile robot configured for training within an environment (autonomous mobile robot 140, see at least Fig. 1, ¶0005, ¶0028, ¶0037);
one or more sensors configured to collect sensor data while the mobile robot navigates the environment (see at least ¶0048); and
a processor (processor 502) configured to process the sensor data to identify object parameters, determine an infrastructure indicted by the object parameters, and spatially register the infrastructure to a location within the environment to localize the infrastructure during a training run (Infrastructure including manipulable objects, such as pallets as defined in instant specification ¶007, see at least ¶0005, ¶0043, ¶0049, ¶0065).
Regarding claim 22:
Cesic further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine a pose of the mobile robot to localize the mobile robot (see at least ¶0072).
Regarding claim 23:
Cesic further teaches wherein the system further comprises a semantic database including a plurality of object models, wherein each object model embodies object parameters for a type of infrastructure, and the processor is further configured to access the object models to determine the infrastructure (see at least ¶0065, ¶0101).
Regarding claim 24:
Cesic further teaches wherein the semantic database groups infrastructure object models into types of infrastructure object models based on the object parameters (see at least ¶0054).
Regarding claim 25:
Cesic further teaches wherein the system is configured to be trained to manipulate infrastructure and to employ an infrastructure object model in that manipulation (see at least ¶0006, ¶0077).
Regarding claim 26:
Cesic further teaches wherein the mobile robotics platform is configured to employ an infrastructure object model other than the one it was trained to employ in the manipulation (multiple machine learning models, for identifying, determining pose, determining mission plans are employed, see at least ¶0047-0056, ¶0077, ¶0101).
Regarding claim 27:
Cesic further teaches wherein the system is configured to be trained to localize infrastructure and to employ an infrastructure object model in that localization (see at least ¶0057).
Regarding claims 30-37, Cesic teaches a method as in claims 21-27 above.
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 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.
Claims 28-29 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesic as applied to claims 21-27 above, in view of Horowitz et al. (US 20023/0192418).
Regarding claims 28 and 38:
Cesic teaches the limitations as above.
Cesic further teaches a user interface for operating and monitoring the robot (see at least Figs. 6-9, ¶0034, ¶0040).
Cesic does not explicitly teach the user interface allowing for operator inputs of attributes for training of the robot.
Horowitz teaches a system and method of training and operating a robot in a facility for manipulation of objects in the facility, including a user interface responsive to operator inputs of attributes associated with infrastructure during training of the mobile robot, wherein the processor is further configured to store the attributes as priors associated with the localized infrastructure for use during runtime (see at least ¶0120).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to modify the robotic training and operation system and method as taught by Cesic by implementing a user-based supervised machine learning technique as taught by Horowitz in order to provide the expected result of customized, flexible learning, allowing a user to input relevant data to ensure a task, pose, classification, etc. is properly acquired.
Regarding claims 29 and 39:
The combination of Cesic and Horowitz teaches the limitations as in claims 28 and 38 above, but is silent as to the particular parameters provided by the user including dimensional attributes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing of the invention to modify the robotic control and learning system and method as taught by Cesic and Horowitz by including dimensional information of the object being trained upon in order to include relevant information for later classification/identification as well as determining manipulation strategies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J RINK whose telephone number is (571)272-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 on (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.
/Ryan Rink/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights