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. 18/931,409 filled on 10/30/2024.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “if” on line 23 to be corrected as “[[if]]when” in order to be given a patentable weight. Claim 7-9 are also objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the drawings, Fig. 2 is labeled with “BCE Loss 212”, however, the specifications fails to discloses what the acronym word "BCE" stands for.
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 § 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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the respective training data element”. It is not clear what does the applicant refer to the phrase “the respective training data element ”. Does the applicant refer it to “generated training data elements”? Further clarification is required. Claims 7-9 are also rejected for the same reasons a discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 7-9 cite the phrase “soft-weighted”. However, the specification fails to further define the phrase “soft-weighted”. Therefore the claims are indefinite.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 recite the phrase “soft-weighted”, which is not being specifically described within the specification. Therefore, claim does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 2-6 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim.
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: “data processing device” in Claim 8; 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.
A review of the specification, , filed 10/30/2024, in page 2, cites “data processing devices, e.g. computers or microcontrollers. A data processing unit may include or be formed from an analogue circuit, a digital circuit, a logic circuit, a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), a digital signal processor (DSP), a field programmable gate array (FPGA). Therefore, the claimed data processing device is interpreted as an hardware.
In Specification, para. [0051], cites “the flight controller 42 records the position information of the drone 10 in the memory 80. The recording of the position information of the drone 10 may be periodically performed. In addition, the flight controller 42 records, in the memory 80, pieces of the unique information received from the other-device drones 101 to 103 and the like”. Therefore, recording unit in claim 5 is interpreted as the flight controller 42.
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.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), and claims/drawing/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 1, Humayun et al. (US 2022/0016766, this reference is from IDS) teaches a method for training a control policy for manipulating an object (See Para. [0019], [0026], [0045], discloses “a method for increasing an accuracy of grasping an object, and generating a trained graspability network”, and/or see Para. [0114]-[0115], “generating a trained graspability network using the labelled images; determining a grasp point using the trained graspability network; and executing an object grasp at the grasp point”), comprising the following steps:
for each of one or more objects in each of one or more scenes (See Para. [0053], “for each object in the scene”):
receiving an input data element including image data representing a shape of the object to be manipulated (See Para. [0085], “receives the image as an input”, Para. [0053], “identifying object features for each object”, and/or and see Para. [0121], “receive a depth image and the grasp points can be a 3D grasp point, e.g., having a height/depth dimension [constitutes the shape of the object])”) and a position of the object in the scene (See Para. [0081]-[0082], “selecting the grasping point where the grasping point can be an X,Y location in an image associated with a physical point in the physical scene”);
generating, for each input data element, one or more training data elements by generating augmentations of the image data (See Para. [0075], “the graspability network is trained to predict the outcome of a grasp attempt at the grasp point, given the respective image as the input”, and see Para. [0065], “augmenting a set of training images”) and pseudo-labels for the augmented image data according to a semi-supervised learning scheme (see Para. [0039], discloses “graspability network including a convolutional neural network (CNN), fully convolutional neural network (FCN), artificial neural network (ANN), a feed forward network, a clustering algorithm, and/or any other suitable neural network or ML model [construed as semi0supervised learning scheme]”, and see Para. [0045], [0048], [0054]-[0055], “labelling [i.e., pseudo-labels] an image based on an attempted object grasp by a robot S100; and generating a trained graspability network using the labelled images S200”); and
training the control policy using the generated training data elements (See Para. [0073], [0075], “The graspability network can be trained using supervised learning, e.g., using the outcome-labelled grasp points in the images as the labeled dataset”, and see Para. [0075], “In particular, the graspability network is trained to predict the outcome of a grasp attempt at the grasp point, given the respective image as the input”);
wherein the training of the control policy includes determining a loss including loss terms for the generated training data elements, wherein: (i) each loss term is soft-weighted in a loss function by applying a softmax function to a confidence of pseudo-labels of manipulation poses of the respective training data element and/or loss terms are filtered out of the loss function if the confidence of pseudo-labels of manipulation poses of the respective training data elements is below a predetermined threshold.
Nevertheless, Humayun fails to explicitly teach, wherein the training of the control policy includes determining a loss including loss terms for the generated training data elements, wherein: (i) each loss term is soft-weighted in a loss function by applying a softmax function to a confidence of pseudo-labels of manipulation poses of the respective training data element and/or loss terms are filtered out of the loss function if the confidence of pseudo-labels of manipulation poses of the respective training data elements is below a predetermined threshold.
However, a NPL document, Zohar et al. (A Hybrid Approach for Learning to Shift and Grasp with Elaborate Motion Primitives, this NPL is from IDS) discloses, wherein the training of the control policy includes determining a loss including loss terms for the generated training data elements (See Page 6367-6368, discloses “loss function such as Critic and Actor loss”),
Nevertheless, the teaching of Humayun and the said NPL document fails to explicitly spell out, “wherein: (i) each loss term is soft-weighted in a loss function by applying a softmax function to a confidence of pseudo-labels of manipulation poses of the respective training data element and/or loss terms are filtered out of the loss function if the confidence of pseudo-labels of manipulation poses of the respective training data elements is below a predetermined threshold”, and in combination with all other limitation of claim 1.
Claims 2-6 depends on claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-6 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency.
Claim 7 is a method claim and having the same technical features and allowable subject matter as claim 1. Therefore, the claim 7 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 8 is a device claim and having the same technical features and allowable subject matter as claim 1. Therefore, the claim 8 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 9 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and having the same technical features and allowable subject matter as claim 1. Therefore, the claim 9 would be allowable for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
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