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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of proper language and format for an abstract (see MPEP § 608.01(b)):
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “The invention relates to” is a phrase which can be implied and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims, as drafted, are not within one of the statutory classes.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim is directed to “a method” as per line 1, but the claim does not recite any method steps. Specifically, the claim recites “A method for preparing and carrying out tasks by means of a robot” in lines 1-2. No method steps are recited in the description of the robot as per line 2-6. Accordingly, the claim as drafted is directed to “using” the robot as per line 2-6 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claim does not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Examiner suggests rewriting the claim using the gerund form of verbs to show which steps are being completed, such as “determining at least one probable action goal on the basis of surrounding information” to demonstrate specific steps being taken.
Regarding Claims 2-8, the claims further characterize the robot as per Claim 1 without identifying any method steps. Accordingly, the claims as drafted are directed to “using” the robot as per Claim 1 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claims do not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claims 2-8 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “A robot for carrying out tasks, characterized in that the robot configured to carry out a method according to claim 1”. However, as discussed above, no method is identified in Claim 1. Accordingly, the claim as drafted is directed to “using” the robot of Claim 1 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claim does not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “A computer program … with which a method according to claim 1 is implemented”. However, as discussed above, no method is identified in Claim 1. Accordingly, the claim as drafted is directed to “using” the robot of Claim 1 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). As such, the claim does not describe a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected.
Additionally, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “A computer program, characterized in that the computer program comprises program code sections… carried out on a control device of a robot” encompasses software per se. See MPEP §2106.03.11 (“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: ... products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations)”. Paragraph [0040-0041] discloses that the computer program may be carried out on the robot, which may be a simulation lacking physical hardware and that the program may be a implementable program file without any tangible components and therefore is directed towards software per se.
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 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is directed to “A method for preparing and carrying out tasks by means of a robot” in lines 1-2. No method steps are recited in the description of the robot as per line 2-6. Accordingly, the claim as drafted is directed to “using” the robot as per line 2-6 without setting forth any method steps (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determined on the basis of surroundings information” in line 3 which lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 2-8, the claims further characterize the robot as per Claim 1 without identifying any method steps. No claim language links “using” the robot of claim 1 with method steps. Accordingly, the scope of the “method” as per Claims 2-8 cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claims 2-8 are rejected.
Regarding Claim 9, the claim recites “A robot for carrying out tasks, characterized in that the robot configured to carry out a method according to claim 1”. However, as discussed above, no method is identified in Claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of the “method” as per Claim 9 cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “A computer program … with which a method according to claim 1 is implemented”. However, as discussed above, no method is identified in Claim 1. Accordingly, the scope of the “method” as per Claim 10 cannot be determined (see MPEP § 2173.05(q)). Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Stramandinoli et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2022/0297304 A1 hereinafter “Stramandinoli”).
Regarding claim 1 Stramandinoli discloses:
A method for preparing and carrying out tasks by means of a robot, characterized in that in a preparation phase at least one probable action goal is determined on the basis of surroundings information (Stramandinoli [0033] [0036-0038] wherein the system includes robots interacting with an environment based on the predicted actions of the user) and taking into account a user command probability, (Stramandinoli [0033] [0036-0038] wherein the robot takes actions based on a predicted action by the user i.e. command the user will make in the collaborative system) at least one preparation action sequence is generated which is aimed at the at least one probable action goal, (Stramandinoli [0054-0056] wherein the robot bases movements on observed and likely actions of the user) and the at least one preparation action sequence is carried out. (Stramandinoli [0054-0056] wherein the robot plans and acts based on the identified action).
Regarding claim 2 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Stramandinoli further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, characterized in that when carrying out the at least one preparatory action sequence, object-dependent constraint conditions are determined and stored. (Stramandinoli [0036] [0040] wherein the system determines actions based on predictions and saved action classes, extracting features from images and learned actions).
Regarding claim 3 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Stramandinoli further discloses:
The method according to claim 2, characterized in that after a user command to carry out a probable action goal, in an execution phase, the stored object-dependent constraint conditions are used in at least one execution action sequence. (Stramandinoli [0054-0056] wherein the robot considers actions for a response based on constraints and likely human actions).
Regarding claim 4 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 2 and Stramandinoli further discloses:
The method according to claim 2, characterized in that using the same action representations, the robot is shared in a first support mode (Stramandinoli [0040] [0048] wherein the robot operates in a cooperative mode working with the user) and is controlled autonomously under user supervision in a second support mode, (Stramandinoli [0040] [0052] wherein the robot is operated with supervising with feedback to a user) wherein the stored object-dependent constraint conditions are used in the first support mode and/or in the second support mode. (Stramandinoli [0054-0056] wherein the robot operates with a user interacting with the system and predicting the actions of the user i.e. constraints to use while operating).
Regarding claim 8 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Stramandinoli further discloses:
The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the preparation phase is carried out continuously in the background. (Stramandinoli [0050] wherein the system constantly observes actions and the user for actions and transitions).
Regarding claim 9 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Stramandinoli further discloses:
A robot for carrying out tasks, characterized in that the robot configured to carry out a method according to claim 1. (Stramandinoli [0050] [0056] wherein the system includes a robot to operate with the user).
Regarding claim 10 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and Stramandinoli further discloses:
A computer program, characterized in that the computer program comprises program code sections with which a method according to claim 1 is implementable when the computer program is carried out on a control device of a robot. (Stramandinoli [0058] wherein the system includes a computer controller to operate the robot).
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 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stramandinoli in view of Saito et al. (US Pre-Granted Publication No. US 2014/0298231 A1 hereinafter “Saito”).
Regarding claim 5 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Stramandinoli does not appear to disclose:
… characterized in that, in the preparation phase, after a user command to carry out an action goal not determined as a probable action goal, at least one preparation action sequence aimed at this action goal is generated and carried out before the start of an execution phase in order to determine object-dependent constraint conditions, and in that the execution phase, the determined object-dependent constraint conditions are used in at least one execution action sequence.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Saito discloses:
“characterized in that, in the preparation phase, after a user command to carry out an action goal not determined as a probable action goal, (Saito [0067] [0086] [0073] wherein the robot system determines that an action is not possible to carry out) at least one preparation action sequence aimed at this action goal is generated and carried out before the start of an execution phase in order to determine object-dependent constraint conditions, (Saito [0073] wherein the system creates a prepared successful action before actual operation) and in that the execution phase, the determined object-dependent constraint conditions are used in at least one execution action sequence” (Saito [0071] [0073] wherein the tasks are determined that may involve difficult situation, and changes can be made prior to operation).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the probable action goal and predetermined constraints of Saito with the system of Stramandinoli with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a system for the robot to be successful even before the user needs to be involved, learning and fixing issues prior to operation (Saito [0073] [0006]).
Regarding claim 7 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Stramandinoli does not appear to disclose:
… characterized in that the preparation action sequence and/or an action sequence not yet carried out in the preparation phase is carried out in real and/or simulative form.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls Saito discloses:
“characterized in that the preparation action sequence and/or an action sequence not yet carried out in the preparation phase is carried out in real and/or simulative form.” (Saito [0069] wherein the robot action tasks are prepared based on what would be suitable).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the probable action goal and predetermined constraints of Saito with the system of Stramandinoli with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a system for the robot to be successful even before the user needs to be involved, learning and fixing issues prior to operation (Saito [0073] [0006]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stramandinoli in view of Park et al. (Foreign Patent Publication Translation KR 101858108 B1 hereinafter “the Park translation”).
Regarding claim 6 Stramandinoli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 but Stramandinoli does not appear to disclose:
… characterized in that the user command probability is determined by means of a stochastic model, a directed acyclic graph, an undirected probabilistic model, inverse optimal control with maximum entropy or Laplace's method.
However, in the same field of endeavor of robotic controls the Park translation discloses:
“characterized in that the user command probability is determined by means of a stochastic model, a directed acyclic graph, an undirected probabilistic model, inverse optimal control with maximum entropy or Laplace's method.” (Park translation page 2 9th paragraph, page 3 2nd-5th paragraph, wherein the robot operation is based on probabilistic roadmaps for non-uniform operation while avoiding collisions and completing a task).
Examiner notes that due to the “or” limitation, only one of the types of probability is needed to completely teach the claim.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modeling of the Park translation with the system of Stramandinoli with a reasonable expectation of success because one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide real time performance and responsiveness of the robot system (the Park translation pages 2-3 9th-1st paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2003/0130851 A1 discloses a robot autonomously planning and performing actions based on external outputs
US 2021/0298795 A1 discloses a robotic system interacting with a constraint in an environment the robot operates
US 2020/0345438 A1 discloses a robotic system determining locations for the robot to operate without conflict
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle T Johnson whose telephone number is (303)297-4339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-5:00 MT.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/KYLE T JOHNSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3656