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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/22/24 are accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/24 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). It is noted that Claim 10 is missing in the claim set filed on 11/22/24.
Claims 1, 9 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: “receiving no first error message” in the last limitation should be “not receiving said first error message”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 4, and 8 are method claims that use contingency language “in response to”, it is noted that MPEP 2111.04 states “II. CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14. See also MPEP § 2143.03.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 1 would be one of “in response to receiving a first error message sent by the assembly device, determining remaining text based on the first error message, using the remaining text as new process text, and returning to a step of inputting the process text into the unimodal model and generating the machine instructions, wherein the first error message is acquired based on an exception capturing module of the assembly device, the exception capturing module has a fixed pattern, and the remaining text comprises at least part of the process text” or “in response to receiving no first error message sent by the assembly device, completing assembly”, because the conditions of “receiving a first error message” and “receiving no first error message” is mutually exclusive, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 4 would be without the limitations of “in response to determining that the matching degree between the process step and the standard step corresponding to the assembly drawing is less than a preset threshold, generating a second error message; and updating the assembly information based on the second error message, and returning to a step of inputting the assembly information into the multimodal model and determining the process step until the matching degree between the process step and the standard step corresponding to the assembly drawing is greater than or equal to the preset threshold” because the condition of “the matching degree between the process step and the standard step corresponding to the assembly drawing is less than a preset threshold” is not required by the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim 8 would be without the limitation of “in response to determining that the assembly result does not match a preset result corresponding to an assembly drawing, generating a third error message; and updating the model prompt based on the third error message and returning to a step of inputting the process text into the unimodal model and generating the machine instructions until the assembly result matches the preset result corresponding to the assembly drawing” because the condition of “the assembly result does not match a preset result corresponding to an assembly drawing” is not required by the claim.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner has examined the method claims 4 and 8 in consideration of the steps with contingent limitation.
The examiner recommends adding “determining that the matching degree between the process step and the standard step corresponding to the assembly drawing is less than a preset threshold” before “in response to determining that the matching degree between the process step and the standard step corresponding to the assembly drawing is less than a preset threshold” in claim 4 to include the contingent limitation in the BRI of claim 4.
The examiner recommends adding “determining that the assembly result does not match a preset result corresponding to an assembly drawing” before “in response to determining that the assembly result does not match a preset result corresponding to an assembly drawing” in claim 8 to include the contingent limitation in the BRI of claim 8.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental steps involving generating machine instructions, wherein the machine instructions are represented in computer language; in response to receiving a first error message sent by the assembly device, determining remaining text based on the first error message, using the remaining text as new process text, the remaining text comprises at least part of the process text, determining the process text based on the process step and a process knowledge graph associated with the assembly drawing, determining executed instructions, wherein the executed instructions are instructions that are among the machine instructions and that have been executed when the assembly device sends the first error message; determining executed text based on the executed instructions; determining the remaining text based on the executed text and the process text, determining a matching degree between the process step and a standard step corresponding to the assembly drawing, decomposing the process step to obtain process actions and an action topology, wherein the action topology is configured to indicate a position and a dependency relationship of each of the process actions in the process step; determining action text corresponding to each of the process actions based on the process knowledge graph; combining action text corresponding to the process actions according to the action topology to obtain the process text, the process step comprises process requirements, and the process knowledge graph comprises a basic graph and an encapsulation function; for any of the process actions, determining action text corresponding to a process action based on the process knowledge graph comprises: determining a workpiece feature and an assembly feature of the process action based on the basic graph; determining a control parameter of the process action based on the encapsulation function, with the process requirements as constraints; determining the action text corresponding to the process action based on the workpiece feature, the assembly feature, and the control parameter, constructing a model prompt based on the process text and the primitive function library (see claims 1-7), these limitations as described in [0029]-[0046] is recited in high level of generality constitutes as a mental process, such as an evaluation or judgement, that can be performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of acquiring process text, wherein the first error message is acquired based on an exception capturing module of the assembly device, the exception capturing module has a fixed pattern, acquiring assembly information, acquiring an assembly result (claims 1-2 and 8) represent mere data collection which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The additional limitations of inputting the process text into a unimodal model, returning to a step of inputting the process text into the unimodal model, inputting the assembly information into a multimodal model, an input end of the unimodal model is provided with a primitive function library, the primitive function library comprises an instruction function, the instruction function is represented in the computer language, and the computer language comprises at least one of machine language, assembly language, high-level language, or specialized language, inputting the process text into the unimodal model and generating the machine instructions comprises inputting the model prompt into the unimodal model and generating the machine instructions (claims 1-2 and 7) represent mere data transmission which is an insignificant extrasolution activity. The controlling an assembly device to execute the machine instructions limitation generally apply the abstract idea via generalized control.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the insignificant extra-solution activity of data collection is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited, the insignificant extra-solution activity of data transmission is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. Moreover, the general application of controlling an assembly device are equivalent of applying the abstract idea, infra applied prior art, references cited, mpep 2106.05(d) (e.g. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20240253211 to Rose et al. (hereinafter “Rose”), in view of US20230311335 to Hausman et al. (hereinafter “Hausman”), in view of translation of DE 10300605 to Duerr et al. (hereinafter “Duerr”).
As for claim 1, Rose substantially discloses a method (Rose, see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 and [0086]) comprising:
acquiring process text, inputting the process text into a unimodal model, and generating machine instructions, wherein the machine instructions are represented in computer language (Rose, see Fig. 1, [0005], and [0056]-[0057], it is noted that GPT-3 is a unimodal model);
controlling a device to execute the machine instructions (Rose, see Fig. 1 and [0056]-[0057]);
in response to receiving a first error message sent by the device (Rose, see Fig. 3, [0016] and [0115]) , determining remaining text based on the first error message (Rose, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0084] “ including all of the successful parts of the Task Plan executed, with additional verbiage describing what failed and asking the LLM what to do next” and [0139] “Steps 3 through 12 were not executed”), using the remaining text as new process text (Rose, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0084] and [0139]), and returning to a step of inputting the process text into the unimodal model and generating the machine instructions (Rose, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0084] and [0139]-[0149]), wherein the first error message is acquired based on an exception capturing module of the device (Rose, see [0217]), and the remaining text comprises at least part of the process text (Rose, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0084] and [0139]-[0149]).
Rose does not explicitly disclose an assembly method, using robot as an assembly device, the exception capturing module has a fixed pattern.
However, Hausman in an analogous art discloses an assembly method (Hausman, see [0042]-[0043]), using robot as an assembly device (Hausman, see [0042]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Hausman into the method of Rose. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensures that the selected robotic skill is both (a) likely to lead to successful completion of the task reflected by the FF NL input (as reflected by the task-grounding measure) and (b) likely to be successful if implemented by a robot in the current environment (Hausman, see [0014]).
The combination of Rose and Hausman does not explicitly disclose the exception capturing module has a fixed pattern. However, Duerr in an analogous art discloses the exception capturing module has a fixed pattern (Duerr, see pages 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Duerr into the method of Rose and Hausman. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to avoid the occurrence of a state of emergency and the resulting abort of the control (Duerr, page 2).
Claim 9 is a device claim corresponds to the method claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Rose further discloses a processor and a memory communicatively connected to the processor,
wherein the memory stores a computer program executable by the processor to enable the processor to perform a method (Rose, see [0086]).
Claim 18 is a CRM claim corresponds to the method claim 1, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Rose further discloses wherein the computer instructions are configured to enable a processor to perform a method when the computer instructions are executed by the processor (Rose, see [0086]).
Claim(s) 2-3, 11-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose, in view of Hausman, in view of Duerr, further in view of abstract of “A question answering system for assembly process of wind turbines based on multi-modal knowledge graph and large language model” to Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Rose further discloses the process step is represented in natural language (Rose, see [0009] “task plan expressed in NL), determining the process text based on the process step (Rose, see [0009], Fig. 2 and [0056]-[0057]). The combination of Rose, Hausman and Duerr does not explicitly disclose acquiring assembly information, inputting the assembly information into a multimodal model, and determining a process step, wherein the assembly information comprises assembly text and an assembly drawing, and the process step is represented in natural language; and determining the text based on the process step and a process knowledge graph associated with the assembly drawing.
However, Hu in an analogous art discloses acquiring assembly information, inputting the assembly information into a multimodal model (Hu, see pages 1099-1100), and determining a process step, wherein the assembly information comprises assembly text and an assembly drawing (Hu, see abstract and pages 1099-1100), determining the text based on the process step and a process knowledge graph associated with the assembly drawing (Hu, see pages 1099-1101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Hu into the method of Rose, Hausman and Duerr. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to improve production efficiency by utilizing a Multi-modal Process KnowledgeGraph (Hu, see abstract).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Rose further discloses determining executed instruction, wherein the executed instruction are instruction that are among the machine instructions and that have been executed when the device sends the first error message (Rose, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0084] and [0139]-[0149]), determining executed text based on the executed instructions; and determining the remaining text based on the executed text and the process text (Rose, see Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0084] and [0139]-[0149]). Hausman further discloses the assembly device (Hausman, see [0042]-[0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Hausman into the method of Rose. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to ensures that the selected robotic skill is both (a) likely to lead to successful completion of the task reflected by the FF NL input (as reflected by the task-grounding measure) and (b) likely to be successful if implemented by a robot in the current environment (Hausman, see [0014]).
Claims 11-12 are device claims corresponds to the method claims 2-3, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 2-3.
Claims 19-20 are CRM claims corresponds to the method claims 2-3, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 2-3.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose, in view of Hausman, in view of Duerr, further in view of “PROGPROMPT: Generating Situated Robot Task Plans using Large Language Models” to Singh et al. (hereinafter “Singh”).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Rose further discloses the unimodal model (Rose, see [0005]), the instruction function is represented in the computer language, the computer language comprises at least one of machine language, assembly language, high-level language, or specialized language (Rose, see [0056]-[0057]), inputting the process text into the unimodal model and generating the machine instructions (Rose, see Fig. 1 and [0056]-[0057]). The combination of Rose, Hausman and Duerr does not explicitly disclose an input end of the model is provided with a primitive function library, the primitive function library comprises an instruction function; and constructing a model prompt based on the process text and the primitive function library; and inputting the model prompt into the model and generating the machine instructions.
However, Singh in an analogous art discloses an input end of the model is provided with a primitive function library, the primitive function library comprises an instruction function (Singh, see Fig. 1 on page 1), and constructing a model prompt based on the process text and the primitive function library (Singh, see pages 3-4), and inputting the model prompt into the model and generating the machine instruction (Singh, see pages 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Singh into the method of Rose, Hausman and Duerr. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a programmatic LLM prompt structure that enables plan generation functional across situated environments, robot capabilities, and tasks (Singh, see abstract).
Claim 16 is a device claim corresponds to the method claim 7, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action is overcome, and if rewritten to include the contingent limitation as suggested above in the claim interpretation section and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action is overcome, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US20140379353 discloses conditions, along with other information, are used to adjust a response of a conversational dialog system. The environmental conditions may be used at different times within the conversational dialog system. For example, the environmental conditions can be used to adjust the dialog manager's output (e.g., the machine action). The dialog state information that is used by the dialog manager includes environmental conditions for the current turn in the dialog as well as environmental conditions for one or more past turns in the dialog. The environmental conditions can also be used after receiving the machine action to adjust the response that is provided to the user. For example, the environmental conditions may affect the machine action that is determined as well as how the action is provided to the user. The dialog manager and the response generation components in the conversational dialog system each use the available environmental conditions.
US20220374479 discloses natural language processing using a framework such as a neural network. One example method involves obtaining a first document and a second document and propagating attention from the first document to the second document. The example method also involves producing contextualized semantic representations of individual words in the second document based at least on the propagating. The contextualized semantic representations can provide a basis for performing one or more natural language processing operations.
US20230112921 discloses transparent and controllable human-AI interaction via chaining of machine-learned language models. In particular, although existing language models (e.g., so-called “large language models” (LLMs)) have demonstrated impressive potential on simple tasks, their breadth of scope, lack of transparency, and insufficient controllability can make them less effective when assisting humans on more complex tasks. In response, the present disclosure introduces the concept of chaining instantiations of machine-learned language models (e.g., LLMs) together, where the output of one instantiation becomes the input for the next, and so on, thus aggregating the gains per step.
US20240362422 discloses a computing system for revising large language model (LLM) input prompts is provided herein. In one example, the computing system includes at least one processor configured to receive, via a prompt interface, a prompt from a user including an instruction for a trained LLM to generate an output, and generate a first response to the prompt. The at least one processor is configured to assess the first response according to assessment criteria to generate an assessment report for the first response, and generate a revised prompt in response to second input including the first prompt, the first response, the assessment report, and a prompt revision instruction for the LLM to revise the prompt in view of the assessment report. The at least one processor is configured to, in response to final input including the revised prompt, generate a final response to the revised prompt, and output the final response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
