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 is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 11/8/24, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 6-8, 11-17 over comes the prior art of record.
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 1-5, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 19, 20 as written recite “obtaining a scene representation model representing a scene having one or more objects, the scene representation model being configured to predict a value of a physical property of one or more of the objects; obtaining a value of the physical property of at least one of the objects, the obtained value being derived from a physical contact of a robot with the at least one object; and updating the scene representation model based on the obtained value” are the process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting “by processing device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (e.g., including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion). For example, but for the “computer” language, the step of “obtaining a scene representation model…; obtaining a value…; updating the scene presentation model…”, the context of this limitation encompasses that a person can mentally observing scene or environment or the process of the robot is performing the task (e.g. pick up the objects), the person can be able to view the which object that the robot pick up first or second. The person can also weight the particular object based on the robot has physical contact on the object. For example, the robot picks up object A first, then then the object B. The person observe that object A has smaller size and weight than object B. Then a person can also able to weight or give the value of object A is 1, and object B is 2 based on the priority of the robot pick up the objects, for example. The person can update/labeling the objects value in order based on observing the robot’s performance. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under the 2A prong 1 analysist.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application with respect to the 2A prong 2 analysist. In particular, the claim using a processor to perform the abstract idea. This step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., a generic processor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Further, the robot as recited is not part of the system/method recited in the claims and is considered as general link to the technical environment. In the other words, the claim does not recite controlling the robot. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to the 2B analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discuss above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer components to perform all of the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or other machinery. Further, the robot as recited is not part of the system/method recited in the claims and is considered as general link to the technical environment. In the other words, the claim does not recite controlling the robot.
Noting that claim to a system is held ineligible for the same reason, e.g., the generically-recited computers add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. Therefore, the independents 1, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Dependent claims 2-5, 9-18 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1, 19-20 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational and are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 9, 10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE ET AL (US 2022/0371195). Herein after LEE.
As for claim 1, LEE discloses a computer implemented method for updating a scene representation model, the method comprising:
obtaining a scene representation model representing a scene having one or more objects, the scene representation model being configured to predict a value of a physical property of one or more of the objects {see at least figures 3-5, pars.0057- 0058 e.g. the computing device 302 can receive, from the vision component 104a in the environment 100, vision data that captures features of the environment 100, including object features of the object 110a that is located in a first area (location A) of the environment 100, and prior to the robot 120a manipulating the object 110a};
obtaining a value of the physical property of at least one of the objects, the obtained value being derived from a physical contact of a robot with the at least one object {see at least pars. 0023, 0058, 0067 e.g. the vision data can be processed by the computing device 302 to generate the object features of the object 110a so as to generate or determine information identifying the object 110a including information indicating a size of the object 110a and information indicating an estimated weight of the object 110a, for example
par. 0067 discloses the robot 102a may include a sensor on the end-effector 106a to determine tactile properties of the object 110a captured. Then, the computing device 302 can determine, based on the tactile properties of the object, at least one third adjustment to the programmed trajectory of movement of the robot 102a operating in the environment 100 to perform the task}; and
updating the scene representation model based on the obtained value
{see at least par. 0067 e.g. the robot 102a may include a sensor on the end-effector 106a to determine tactile properties of the object 110a captured. Then, the computing device 302 can determine, based on the tactile properties of the object, at least one third adjustment to the programmed trajectory of movement of the robot 102a operating in the environment 100 to perform the task}.
As for claim 2, LEE discloses wherein the physical contact of the robot with the at least one object of the scene comprises a physical movement of, or an attempt to physically move, the at least one object of the scene by the robot, wherein the obtained value is derived from the physical movement or the attempt {see at least pars. 0024, 0067}.
As for claim 3, LEE discloses wherein the physical contact comprises one or more of a top-down poke of the at least one object, a lateral push of the at least one object, and a lift of the at least one object {see at least par. 0024 discloses the lift of object}.
As for claim 4, LEE discloses wherein the value of the physical property is indicative of one or more of a flexibility or stiffness of the at least one object, a coefficient of friction of the at least one object, and a mass of the at least one object {see at least par. 0058 indicated a mass of the object}.
As for claim 5, LEE discloses wherein the physical contact of the robot with the at least one object comprises physical contact of a measurement probe of the robot with the at least one object, wherein the obtained value is derived based on an output of the measurement probe when contacting the at least one object {see at least par. 0067}.
As for claim 9 LEE discloses wherein the scene representation model provides an implicit scene representation of the scene {see at least par. 0021}.
As for claim 10, LEE discloses wherein updating the scene representation model comprises: optimizing the scene representation model so as to minimize a loss between the obtained value and the predicted value of the physical property of the at least one object {see at least par. 0088}.
As for claim 18, LEE discloses controlling the robot to carry out a task based on the updated scene representation model {see at least figure 16, pars. 0019, 0067}.
As for claims 19-20, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (US 10,828.778): A method for operating a robot includes: creating a production robot program for execution on a robotic controller, wherein the robot program defines a robot path, performing an offline simulation of robot motion along the robot path using the production robot program.
Takahashi et al (US 2020/0130193): a tactile information estimation apparatus may include one or more memories and one or more processors. The one or more processor are configured to input at least first visual information of an object acquired by a visual sensor to a model.
Rao et al (US 2024/0118667): mitigating the reality gap through training a simulation-to-real machine learning model using a vision-based robot task machine learning model.
Yang et al (US 2023/0035150): acquiring environment interaction data and an actual target value, indicating a target that is actually reached by executing an action corresponding to action data in the environment interaction data; determining a return value after executing the action according to state data, action data and the actual target value at the first time of two adjacent times; updating a return value in the environment interaction data by using the return value after executing the action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights