DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-40 are pending and addressed below.
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 .
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 31, 40 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 recites “wherein the robot includes a non-zero turning radius”. It is not known how a robot includes, or contains, a non-zero turning radius. While present specification at [0044] [0104] [0125] discussed robot properties include turn radius, there is no written description of the ROBOT INCLUDES a non-zero turning radius.
Claim 40 recites “wherein the robot includes a non-zero turning radius”. It is not known how a robot includes, or contains, a non-zero turning radius. While present specification at [0044] [0104] [0125] discussed robot properties include turn radius, there is no written description of the ROBOT INCLUDES a non-zero turning radius.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
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 31, 40 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 31 recites “wherein the robot includes a non-zero turning radius”. It is not known how a robot includes, or contains, a non-zero turning radius.
Claim 40 recites “wherein the robot includes a non-zero turning radius”. It is not known how a robot includes, or contains, a non-zero turning radius.
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ),
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
Claim feature wherein the robot includes a non-zero turning radius
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 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 21-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes and/or mathematical concepts without significantly more.
With respect to claim 32,
Claim 32 recites:
A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising:
a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and
a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to:
generate a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot, the robot being autonomous;
determine a plurality of positions along the route;
project a plurality of footprints at the plurality of positions, each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot when the robot reaches a respective position of the plurality of positions;
determine, based on the plurality of footprints, whether any of the known objects constitute an obstacle along the route with which the robot is expected to collide; and
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claim 32 recites A system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim limitations in claim 32:
generate a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot, the robot being autonomous;
determine a plurality of positions along the route;
project a plurality of footprints at the plurality of positions, each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot when the robot reaches a respective position of the plurality of positions;
determine, based on the plurality of footprints, whether any of the known objects constitute an obstacle along the route with which the robot is expected to collide; and
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle;
are judicial exception of mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper. For example, a human can observe an area, recognize obstacles, visualize a path of robot footprints, recognize collision with obstacle, and modify the path of footprints.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claims 32 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 32 recites additional elements “A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to”. A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the generate, determine, project and modify steps. The generically recited A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes and/or math concepts using a generic or general-purpose processor and to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claim 32 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements “A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising: a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to” in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. There is not additional element.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
With respect to claims 21-31, 33-40,
Similar to the analysis of claim 32. Step 1: These claims are either method claims or system claims. Step 2A, Prong One: the recited limitations of these claims are mental processes that can be performed by human mind and/or with pen and paper, and/or math concepts. Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B: there are no additional elements that are integrated into a practical application and sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(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) 21-22, 31, 32-33, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 20190196480).
Regarding claims 21 and 32, Taylor teaches:
A system for optimizing robotic route planning, comprising:
a memory comprising computer readable instructions stored thereon, and
a processor configured to execute the computer readable instructions to:
generate a map of an environment comprising locations of known objects and a route to be navigated by a robot, the robot being autonomous;
determine a plurality of positions along the route;
project a plurality of footprints at the plurality of positions, each footprint representing an area within the environment planned to be occupied by the robot when the robot reaches a respective position of the plurality of positions;
determine, based on the plurality of footprints, whether any of the known objects constitute an obstacle along the route with which the robot is expected to collide; and
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle;
(at least figs. 1-4, 6A-6B, [0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] discussed robotic device/vehicle, planning system 110, robotic devices 120, warehouse management system 210, computing device 600, computing clusters 609a-c, and their computerized components/processors/data storage/ computer-readable storage media/memory; figs. 7-8E [0105]-[0137] discussed paths 801, 830, 832, trimmed path, footprints, obstacles/objects 808a-d);
Regarding claim 22, Taylor teaches:
wherein projecting the plurality of footprints comprises: determining a pose of each footprint based on at least one of a physical size of the robot, a steering angle planned to be commanded to the robot, and a velocity planned to be commanded to the robot
(at least figs. 1-4, 6A-6B, [0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] discussed robotic device/vehicle, planning system 110, robotic devices 120, warehouse management system 210, computing device 600, computing clusters 609a-c, and their computerized components/processors/data storage/ computer-readable storage media/memory; figs. 7-8E [0105]-[0137] discussed paths 801, 830, 832, trimmed path, footprints, obstacles/objects 808a-d; at least [0114]-[0116]);
Regarding claim 31, as best understood, Taylor teaches:
wherein the robot includes a non-zero turning radius (at least figs. 1-4, 6A-6B, [0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] discussed robotic device/vehicle, planning system 110, robotic devices 120, warehouse management system 210, computing device 600, computing clusters 609a-c, and their computerized components/processors/data storage/ computer-readable storage media/memory; figs. 7-8E [0105]-[0137] discussed paths 801, 830, 832, trimmed path, footprints, obstacles/objects 808a-d);
Regarding claim 33, the cited portions and rationale of rejection to claim 22 read on this claim.
Regarding claim 40, the cited portions and rationale of rejection to claim 31 read on this claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-22, 31, 32-33, 40 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 in view of Taylor (US 20190196480).
Regarding claims 21, 32, claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 teach all limitations except:
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle;
However, Taylor teaches:
modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle;
(at least figs. 1-4, 6A-6B, [0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] discussed robotic device/vehicle, planning system 110, robotic devices 120, warehouse management system 210, computing device 600, computing clusters 609a-c, and their computerized components/processors/data storage/ computer-readable storage media/memory; figs. 7-8E [0105]-[0137] discussed paths 801, 830, 832, trimmed path, footprints, obstacles/objects 808a-d) for avoidance of obstacles ([0034]-[0080] [0085]-[0104] [0105]-[0137]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 with modify the route to prevent the robot from colliding with the obstacle as taught by Taylor for avoidance of obstacles.
Regarding claims 22, 31, 33, 40, claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164299 do not explicitly teach these claims.
However, Taylor teaches these claims as applied to prior art rejections above, for avoidance of obstacles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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 at (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 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656