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
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
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 “1-7 and 9-14” are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 9 reads:
A method performed by an autonomous system that includes a robot operating in an active industrial environment so as to define a runtime, the robot defining an end effector configured to grasp a plurality of objects within a workspace, the method comprising:
obtaining dimensions of a bin within the workspace, the bin capable of containing one or more of the plurality of objects within one or more walls of the bin;
based on the dimensions, determining planes that represent the one or more walls of the bin;
obtaining properties of the end effector;
determining a grasp point and a grasp nominal line, the grasp point defining a location of the end effector within the one or more walls of the bin, and
the grasp nominal line defining a defining a position of the end effector to perform a grasp at the grasp point to perform a grasp at the grasp point; and
based on the planes that represent the one or more walls of the bin, the properties of the end effector, the grasp point, and the grasp nominal line, before performing the grasp, determining whether the end effector collides with the one or more walls when performing the grasp.
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 10 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims 1-7, and 9-14 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, calculating, determining).
The method in claim 9 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The abstract ideas are:
determining planes that represent the one or more walls of the bin;
determining a grasp point and a grasp nominal line,
determining whether the end effector collides with the one or more walls when performing the grasp.
Analyzing the abstract idea, we can understand that the abstract idea with the given examples.
determining planes that represent the one or more walls of the bin; (thinking of the dimensions and knowing the end of the plane is a wall as the dimensions are of a bin)
determining a grasp point and a grasp nominal line, (thinking to be within the wall and avoiding the wall when going to grasp)
determining whether the end effector collides with the one or more walls when performing the grasp. (thinking when the going to grasp for objects, avoiding the walls otherwise a collation would occur)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [receiving data, data gathering, data output] further addressed in WUEC; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 9 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the method is for:
obtaining dimensions of a bin within the workspace, the bin capable of containing one or more of the plurality of objects within one or more walls of the bin;( Pre-solution data collection, data gathering)
obtaining properties of the end effector; (Pre-solution data collection, data gathering)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 9 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Claim 9 further recites WURC extra steps of:
based on the dimensions; [Apply it level] data used for calculations
the grasp point defining a location of the end effector within the one or more walls of the bin, and [data gathering] Also, this limitation is unclear whether these limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or simply a remark redefining well known term. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
the grasp nominal line defining a defining a position of the end effector to perform a grasp at the grasp point to perform a grasp at the grasp point; and [data gathering] Also, this limitation is unclear whether these limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or simply a remark redefining well known term. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
based on the planes that represent the one or more walls of the bin, the properties of the end effector, the grasp point, and the grasp nominal line, before performing the grasp. [Apply it level. Data gathering] data used for calculations
Analyzing the WURC steps of the abstract idea with the given examples.
we can understand that the abstract idea falls within the WURC Activity MPEP 2106.05(d)(1) Evaluation
improvement consideration WURC consideration MPEP.05(a);
mere instructions to apply an exception consideration MPEP 2106.05(f)
insignificant extra-solution activity consideration MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generic computer performing merely generic computer functions, data gathering, populating tables, sending and receiving data or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 9 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 9 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
10. data gathering, mental activity
11. statemen, data gathering
12. data gathering, mental activity of imagining movement
13. mental activity, data gathering.
14. data gathering, mental activity.
Claims 1-7 are rejected using the same rejections as made to claims 9-14.
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 11 and 14 recites the limitation “the autonomous system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 1-15, the phrase "runtime" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). One of ordinary skill in the art would not know what “runtime” means as it is not clearly defined in the speciation’s. “Runtime” is known as the time frame a machine is running or executing a task. However, “runtime” seams to imply other functions not related to the execution of a task relating to the claims.
Claims 1-15, the limitations of “defining” as recited in the claims “robot defining an end effector” is unclear. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know if the robot has a defining shape of an end effector or if there is a model that the robot follows or if the robot acts like an end effector? The same is true for “defining a position” as “the grasp nominal line defining a position of the end effector to perform a grasp at a grasp point”; Geometrically, a line defines an infinite set of points and therefore it is unclear how this context a line can define a Quique position for perming the grasping.
Claims 9-15; the limitation of “defining a defining a position” seems to be a typo.
Claims 9-15; “to perform a grasp at the grasp point to perform a grasp at the grasp point” seems to be repeating and confusing.
Claims 5 and 13 “second first wall”; how can a wall be a first and second wall? Are they the same wall?
Claim 3. One of ordinary skilled in the art would not know how a 3D geometric shape of an end effector would be a 2D line.
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.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Although the claims 11 and 14 recites a system, it depends on claim 10 which is a method claim. Because it is unclear if the claim is a method claim or a system claim, claim 11 does not fall clearly within at least one of the four categories. As such claim 11 is rejected under 101.
Claim 11 and 14 recites the limitation "The autonomous system as recited in claim 10". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 10 recites “the method further comprising”.
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, 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanno US 20020169522 in view of Aparicio US 2024.
1. An autonomous system configured to operate in an active industrial environment so as to define a runtime, the autonomous system comprising: para 32-33 industrial robot
a robot defining an end effector configured to grasp a plurality of objects within a work-space; para 32-33 industrial robot and Fig.1
and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous system to, during the runtime: para 34
obtain dimensions of a bin within the workspace, the bin capable of containing one or more of the plurality of objects within one or more walls of the bin; para 38; dimensions and positions/orientation of the storage box 4 are determined and stored in the memory of the robot controller 6
based on the dimensions, determine planes that represent the one or more walls of the bin; para 42, it is assumed that the interference will occur between the tool 3 and a member such as a side wall of the storage box 4 which is closest to the objective workpiece. In this example, it is determined that a side wall 4a is a member of the storage box 4 closest to the objective workpiece 10. Also Fig. 1-5
obtain properties of the end effector; para 38; further information on shapes and dimensions of the tool 3 and shapes and dimensions and positions/orientation of the storage box 4 are determined and stored in the memory of the robot controller 6
determine a grasp point and a grasp nominal line {Specifications para 24 angle or direction or vector of attack}, the grasp point defining a location of the end effector within the one or more walls of the bin, and the grasp nominal line defining a position of the end effector to perform a grasp at the grasp point; para 37-38 the position/orientation Tn of the tool 3 for getting hold of the workpiece in the teaching operation. Also Aparicio 32 below.
and
based on the planes that represent the one or more walls of the bin, the properties of the end effector, the grasp point, and the grasp nominal line, before performing the grasp, determine whether the end effector collides with the one or more walls when performing the grasp. Para 37-38. It is further noted that only one of the above limitations need to be addressed as the limitations are presented in a Markush Grouping.
Markush Groups
Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Claims that set forth a list of alternatives from which a selection is to be made are typically referred to as Markush claims, after the appellant in Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196-97 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)
A Markush grouping is proper if the members of a group share a single structural similarity and a common use. See subsections II - IV, below, for guidelines regarding the determination of whether a Markush grouping is improper, a Markush grouping may be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
A claim which recites a list of alternatives to define a limitation such as “one or more…” recited in the claim. As such only one of the selections of the limitation needs to be addressed with a rejection to fully reject the claim.
Kanno do not explicitly disclose determine a grasp point and a grasp nominal line.
However, Aparicio teaches para 32; The approach vector can be computed by fitting a tangential plane to the selected grasp point. The approach vector can define the normal vector of this tangential plane. The normal vector can be extended to determine whether robot arm would collide with anything, for example, if it follows along the normal vector toward the grasp point.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for the purpose of shifting a grasp object to avoid collation with a plane such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. The combination is also considered obvious to try as stated in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
2. (original) The autonomous system as recited in claim 1, the memory further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous system to, during the runtime:
based on the end effector properties, identify a geometric shape that represents the end effector. para 38; The position/orientation Wn of the workpiece in the teaching operation, and the position/orientation Tn of the tool 3 for getting hold of the workpiece in the teaching operation, and further information on shapes and dimensions of the tool 3 and shapes and dimensions and positions/orientation of the storage box 4 are determined and stored in the memory of the robot controller 6
3. (original) The autonomous system as recited in claim 2, wherein the geometric shape is
a cylinder, cuboid, para 38. shape stored in the memory of the robot controller 6 in advance,
or
line.
4. (original) The autonomous system as recited in claim 2, the memory further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous system to, during the runtime:
based on the geometric shape, determine a geometric dimension of the geometric shape; para 38; The position/orientation Wn of the workpiece in the teaching operation, and the position/orientation Tn of the tool 3 for getting hold of the workpiece in the teaching operation, and further information on shapes and dimensions of the tool 3 and shapes and dimensions and positions/orientation of the storage box 4 are determined and stored in the memory of the robot controller 6 in advance, and it is determined whether or not the tool 3 will interfere with the storage box 4 based on the position/orientation Ta of the tool 3 determined according to the equation (1), the information on the shapes and dimensions of the tool 3, and the information on the shape and dimensions and the position/orientation of the storage box 4.
and move the geometric shape along the grasp nominal line so as to determine whether the end effector collides [with the use of camera] with the one or more walls, para 35; a picking-up operation of a workpiece 10, the robot 5 is operated to move the wrist to take a position/orientation at which the camera 2 on the wrist can capture an image of the workpieces including an objective workpiece as an object of the picking-up operation in the storage box 4 and then an image of the workpieces is captured by the camera 2 with projection of the laser beam [also nominal line] from the laser beam projector 1 to detect position/orientation of the objective workpiece upon receipt of commands from the robot controller 6.
wherein the geometric dimension represents a dimension of the end effector measured along a first direction substantially perpendicular to the grasp nominal line. Para 68; a three-dimensional visual sensor for detecting three-dimensional position/orientation including a distance between the camera and the objective workpiece by the combination of the camera and the laser beam projector.
5. (original) The autonomous system as recited in claim 1, the memory further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous system to, during the runtime:
determine a first perpendicular distance from a first wall of the one or more walls to the grasp point, the first perpendicular distance defining a first normal vector from the second first wall;68; a three-dimensional visual sensor for detecting three-dimensional position [distance and position i.e. direction is the normal vector]/orientation including a distance between the camera and the objective workpiece by the combination of the camera and the laser beam projector. Also, Aparicio 32.
select a point along the grasp nominal line so as to define a selected point; and 68; position of objective workpiece along laser beam. [point is the workpiece] and Fig. 8 #302
determine a second perpendicular distance from the first wall to the selected point, the second perpendicular distance defining a second normal vector from the first wall.68; and Fig. 8 #306 Every predetermined orientation has selected? Loop so 1st, 2nd … nth.
6. (original) The autonomous system as recited in claim 5, the memory further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous system to, during the runtime:
compare the first perpendicular distance to the second perpendicular distance; and
when the first perpendicular distance is less than the second perpendicular distance, deter- mine that the end effector does not collide with the first wall when performing the grasp. Aparicio 32; generate an approach vector that ensures no collisions between the end effector 116 and other objects, such as bin walls or the like.
7. (currently amended) The autonomous system as recited in claim1, the memory further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous system to, during the runtime:
determine that the end effector collides with the one or more walls when performing the grasp; and Aparicio para 32; the system can assess the direction or course of the approach vector, the geometry of the end-effector, the location of the grasp point so as to determine if collisions will occur. If the assessment results in the conclusion that a collision may occur, the system can alter the approach
reject the grasp such that the grasp is not performed.
33; geometric reasoning to reject grasps that would lead to collisions.
8. (currently amended) The autonomous system as recited in claim1, the memory further storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the autonomous system to, during the runtime:
determine that the end effector does not collide with the one or more walls when performing the grasp; and perform the grasp. Aparicio 32; the system can alter the approach vector so as to define a new approach vector. By following the new approach vector, the end effector 116 can grasp the object without colliding with any objects.
9. Claim 9 is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1. Additionally, the limitation of “when performing the grasp” in claim 9 is a conditional limitation.
10. Claim 10 is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 2.
11. Claim 11 is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 3.
12. Claim 12 is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 4.
13. is rejected using the same rejections made to claim 5 and 6.
14. is rejected using the same rejections made to claim 7 and 8.
15. is rejected using the same rejections made to claim 9. The claim is also a conditional statement based on when.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See 892 Notice of References Cited for additional arts not cited in this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 11-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights