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 1-21 are pending. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 14 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.
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, 13, and 21” 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 13 reads:
. A method comprising: receiving, by a processor, an input data for performing a task on a robot, wherein the input data comprises at least one of a task to be performed, task requirements, a user intent, a haptic input, a voice data, and a prestored instruction; identifying, by the processor, the task to be performed on the robot by analyzing the received input data; determining, by the processor, a complexity level of the task to be performed by analyzing the type of the task to be performed, target objects required, environmental conditions, a channel bandwidth, and a size of data; selecting, by the processor, an autonomy level from a plurality autonomy levels for completing the task using the robot based on the determined complexity level of the task and available resources; predicting, by the processor, robot joint configurations for performing the task based on the identified task to be performed and the selected autonomy level; generating, by the processor, control commands to the robot for performing the task based on the predicted robot joint configurations, wherein the control commands comprise the predicted robot joint configurations, target trajectories and the target objects; selecting, by the processor, a communication path for transmitting the generated control commands to the robot based on the selected autonomy level, the channel bandwidth, and the size of the data; and transmitting, by the processor, the generated control commands to the robot using the selected communication path.
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 13 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, 13, and 21 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 13 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The abstract ideas are:
identifying, the task to be performed on the robot by analyzing the received input data;
determining, a complexity level of the task to be performed by analyzing the type of the task to be performed, target objects required, environmental conditions, a channel bandwidth, and a size of data;
selecting, an autonomy level from a plurality autonomy levels for completing the task using the robot based on the determined complexity level of the task and available resources;
predicting, robot joint configurations for performing the task based on the identified task to be performed and the selected autonomy level;
generating, by the processor, control commands to the robot for performing the task based on the predicted robot joint configurations, wherein the control commands comprise the predicted robot joint configurations, target trajectories and the target objects;
selecting, by the processor, a communication path for transmitting the generated control commands to the robot based on the selected autonomy level, the channel bandwidth, and the size of the data;
Analyzing the abstract idea, we can understand that the abstract idea with the given examples.
identifying, the task to be performed on the robot by analyzing the received input data; thinking about what to do
determining, a complexity level of the task to be performed by analyzing the type of the task to be performed, target objects required, environmental conditions, a channel bandwidth, and a size of data; Thinking how hard the task is
selecting, an autonomy level from a plurality autonomy levels for completing the task using the robot based on the determined complexity level of the task and available resources; Thinking how hard that task is and selecting autonomy levels
predicting, robot joint configurations for performing the task based on the identified task to be performed and the selected autonomy level; Thinking about what may happen based on the joint configurations
generating, control commands to the robot for performing the task based on the predicted robot joint configurations, wherein the control commands comprise the predicted robot joint configurations, target trajectories and the target objects; Thinking about what to do based on joint configuration
selecting, by the processor, a communication path for transmitting the generated control commands to the robot based on the selected autonomy level, the channel bandwidth, and the size of the data; Thinking and selecting the best communication path
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 effect 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 13 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:
receiving, by a processor, an input data for performing a task on a robot, wherein the input data comprises at least one of a task to be performed, task requirements, a user intent, a haptic input, a voice data, and a prestored instruction; Data gathering, data receiving
transmitting, by the processor, the generated control commands to the robot using the selected communication path. Data gathering, data transmitting
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 13 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Claim 13 further recites WURC extra steps of:
“by a processor” insignificant extra solution; Apply it level.
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 claims 1, 13, and 21 are: (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 claims 1, 13, and 21 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
The subject matter of claims 2 and 14 would overcome the 101 rejections as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to perform the functions of claims 2 and 14 soly as a mental process.
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.
Claims 1, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saeidi US 12, 156,708 as applied to claim above, and further in view of Handa US 12399567.
1. Saeidi teaches a system comprising: a processor; and a memory communicably coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: Fig.1#100
receive an input data for performing a task on a robot, wherein the input data comprises at least one of a task to be performed, task requirements, a user intent, a haptic input, a text data, a voice data, and a prestored instruction; (88) C13L33; shared control mode to perform the predetermined task [prestored instruction] using the tool, convert the control command into a robot-specific control signal, and send the robot-specific control signal to the articulating member. Also, GUI for user intent, haptic input, text data.
identify the task to be performed on the robot by analyzing the received input data; C13L34; generate the control command based on [identify based on] the allocation function,
determine a complexity level of the task to be performed by analyzing the type of the task to be performed, C6l37; confidence-based allocation function α(t) requires identification tests for both manual and autonomous control modes to reveal their respective strengths and weaknesses
select an autonomy level from a plurality autonomy levels for completing the task using the robot based on the determined complexity level of the task and available resources; C6L7; Allocation function 808 is a function of the level of manipulation precision. Allocation function 810 is a fixed function and does not change based on the performance criteria. Generally, performance criteria determine the confidence and hence the allocation function, which is task dependent. Allocation function 812 is a function of trust in the manual and/or autonomous control subsystems, and, more particularly, allocation function 812 is a function of the confidence in the manual and/or autonomous control subsystems and their dynamic uncertainties.
predict robot joint configurations for performing the task based on the identified task to be performed and the selected autonomy level; C7L45; Smooth, time-based desired trajectory segments are produced between the waypoints [predict robot joint configurations] using, for example, Reflexxes Motion Libraries. Kinematics and Dynamics Library (KDL) in Open Robot Control Systems (OROCOS) may be used, for example, to transform the task-space trajectories of robot 20 to the joint-space trajectories and generate autonomous control command 222.
generate control commands to the robot for performing the task based on the predicted robot joint configurations, wherein the control commands comprise C7L45; generate autonomous control command 222.
the predicted robot joint configurations, target trajectories and the target objects; C7L48; to transform the task-space trajectories of robot 20 to the joint-space trajectories and generate autonomous control command 222. C8L10; a predetermined task is first performed on different tissue samples [target objects].
Saeidi teaches all of the limitations of claim 1; but does not explicitly teach
target objects required, environmental conditions, a channel bandwidth, and a size of data;
select a communication path for transmitting the generated control commands to the robot based on the selected autonomy level, the channel bandwidth, and the size of the data; and
transmit the generated control commands to the robot using the selected communication path.
However, Handa teaches target objects required, environmental conditions C48L45 surrounding environment information (e.g., intersection information [settings, location, type are all conditions], vehicle information [target objects required i.e. vehicle], road information, etc.), and/or other information., a channel bandwidth C104 line 38; including two 128-bit [bandwidth] channels per die for a total of 8 channels and a data bus width of 1024 bits [bandwidth]., and a size of data C96L45; process various elements based on data size of elements.
select a communication path for transmitting the generated control commands to the robot based on the selected autonomy level, the channel bandwidth, and the size of the data; andC37L20; an interface may provide for separate phases and separate channels for transmitting control signals/addresses/data, as well as burst-type communications for continuous data transfer. In at least one embodiment, an interface may comply with International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) 26262 or International Electrotechnical Commission (“IEC”) 61508 standards, although other standards and protocols may be used. [selection is made based on protocols] [autonomy level, channel bandwidth and data size where addressed and are parameters of data to be transmitted and can be selected based on protocols] Also See C96L30-55; each execution unit in execution units 3908A-3908N operates on arrays of data elements. In at least one embodiment, a number of data elements is “execution size,” or number of channels for an instruction. In at least one embodiment, an execution channel is a logical unit of execution for data element access, masking, and flow control within instructions. In at least one embodiment, a number of channels may be independent of a number of physical Arithmetic Logic Units (ALUs) or Floating Point Units (FPUs) for a particular graphics processor. In at least one embodiment, execution units 3908A-3908N support integer and floating-point data types.
(458) In at least one embodiment, an execution unit instruction set includes SIMD instructions. In at least one embodiment, various data elements can be stored as a packed data type in a register and execution unit will process various elements based on data size of elements. For example, in at least one embodiment, when operating on a 256-bit wide vector, 256 bits of a vector are stored in a register and an execution unit operates on a vector as four separate 64-bit packed data elements (Quad-Word (QW) size data elements), eight separate 32-bit packed data elements (Double Word (DW) size data elements), sixteen separate 16-bit packed data elements (Word (W) size data elements), or thirty-two separate 8-bit data elements (byte (B) size data elements). However, in at least one embodiment, different vector widths and register sizes are possible.
transmit the generated control commands to the robot using the selected communication path. C3L45; a system and method for controlling a robot via teleoperation.
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 with a reasonable expectation of success in order to controlling a robot via teleoperation such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
13 and 21 are rejected using the same rejections made to claim 1
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20230339121; 20230294298; 2023034185; 20230271330.
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