DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status and Claim of Priority
Claims 34-59 are currently being examined. Claims 1-33 were canceled in a preliminary amendment.
This Application makes a Claim of Priority to a Provisional Application and the chain of Continuing Applications set forth in the Specification. This claim of Continuation priority based on the Provisional Application and Continuation Applications is being questioned as stated in Paragraph 3 set forth hereinbelow.
Specification and Objections
The Specification is objected to because the word “prioritized”, the phrase “time threshold”, the phrase “risk threshold”, and the phrase “dynamically updated” are not disclosed or otherwise described in any detail in the Specification. In fact, the claims are the first instance in which the word and the phrases are mentioned. Appropriate correction is required without adding any new matter.
Please be advised that the word and the phrases identified above are neither disclosed nor recited in any of the Provisional Application and Continuing Applications to which this Application makes a claim of priority.
The Specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01
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.
Claims 37-41 and 55-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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 had possession of the claimed invention. The word “prioritized”, the phrase “time threshold”, the phrase “risk threshold”, and the phrase “dynamically updated” are neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification. As a result the Applicant fails to provide full, clear, concise, and exact terms so 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 invention.
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.
Claims 37-41 and 55-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 37, the limitation states “…wherein the associated risk is prioritized over the associated time.”. Because the word “prioritized” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification, there is no basis as to the manner in which priority is established and applied between risk and time. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 38, the limitation states “…the associated time being less than a time threshold”. Because the phrase “time threshold” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification, there is no basis as to how one skilled in the art can determine the associated time being less than a “time threshold” that is undefined. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 39, the limitation states “…wherein the associated time is prioritized over the associated risk.”. Because the word “prioritized” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification, there is no basis as to the manner in which priority is established and applied between time and risk. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 40, the limitation states “…the associated risk being less than a risk threshold”. Because the phrase “risk threshold” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification, there is no basis as to how one skilled in the art can determine the associated risk being less than a “risk threshold” that is undefined. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 41, the limitation states “…a trajectory database that is dynamically updated over time”. Because the phrase “dynamically updated” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification. As such, the Specification does not provide any standard for determining the scope of “dynamically updated”. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the scope of the claim. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgments without restriction renders the claim indefinite. In re Musgrave, 431 F.2d 882, 893 (CCPA 1970).
With respect to Claim 55, the limitation states “…wherein the associated risk is prioritized over the associated time.”. Because the word “prioritized” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification, there is no basis as to the manner in which priority is established and applied between risk and time. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 56, the limitation states “…the associated time being less than a time threshold”. Because the phrase “time threshold” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification, there is no basis as to how one skilled in the art can determine the associated time being less than a “time threshold” that is undefined. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 57, the limitation states “…wherein the associated time is prioritized over the associated risk.”. Because the word “prioritized” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification, there is no basis as to the manner in which priority is established and applied between time and risk. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim 58, the limitation states “…the associated risk being less than a risk threshold”. Because the phrase “risk threshold” is neither disclosed, nor described, nor defined in the Specification, there is no basis as to how one skilled in the art can determine the associated risk being less than a “risk threshold” that is undefined. As a result, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or the applicant regards as the invention.
Nonstatutory 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Further provided, however, that all of the Specification Objections, the 35 USC § 112 (a) rejections, and the 35 USC § 112 (b) set forth hereinabove are satisfactorily resolved.
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 34-36, 42-54, and 59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 8, 10-16, 25, 26, 33, and 42 of U.S. Patent No. 10,350,755. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the '755 patent discloses the following with respect to the Applicant’s claims:
34. A processing system for providing processing of homogenous and non-homogenous objects in both structured and cluttered environments, said processing system comprising: (See Claim 1)
a programmable motion device including an end effector; (See Claim 1)
a perception system for recognizing any of the identity and location of an object presented at an input location; (See Claim 1)
a grasp acquisition system for acquiring the object using the end effector to permit the object to be moved from the input location to a destination location; and (See Claim 1)
a motion planning system for determining a trajectory path from the input location to the destination location using an associated time and an associated risk corresponding to at least one of the recognized identity, location and orientation of the object at the input location from the perception system; and (See Claim 1 and Claim 42)
moving the object from the input location to the destination location using the programmable motion device. (See Claim 1)
35. The processing system as claimed in claim 34, wherein the trajectory path is determined using experience moving other objects with similar identity, location or orientation. (See Claim 13)
36. The processing system as claimed in claim 35, wherein the experience moving other objects with similar identity or location is provided by a different processing system. (See Claim 26)
42. A processing system for providing sortation of homogenous and non-homogenous objects in both structured and cluttered environments, said processing system comprising: (See Claim 1)
a programmable motion device including an end effector; (See Claim 1)
a perception system for recognizing any of the identity and location of an object presented in a plurality of objects at an input location; (See Claim 1)
a grasp acquisition system for acquiring the object using the end effector to permit the object to be moved from the plurality of objects to a processing location; and (See Claim 1)
a motion planning system for determining a trajectory path from the input location to the processing location, (See Claim 1)
said trajectory path including at least one changing portion that is determined specific to the location of the object or orientation of the object at the input location, and (See Claim 1)
at least one unchanging portion that is predetermined and is not specific to the object or the location of the object at the input area. (See Claim 1)
43. The processing system as claimed in claim 42, wherein each of the unchanging portions of the trajectory paths is determined responsive to trajectory data regarding a plurality of possible trajectory paths from at least one base location to the processing location. (See Claim 8)
44. The processing system as claimed in claim 43, wherein the trajectory data includes a time required to move through each of the plurality of possible trajectory paths from the base location to the processing location. (See Claim 10)
45. The processing system as claimed in claim 42, wherein the trajectory data includes a risk factor associated with moving through each of the plurality of possible trajectory paths from the base location to the processing location. (See Claim 11)
46. The processing system as claimed in claim 42, wherein the trajectory data includes a time required to move through each of the plurality of possible trajectory paths from the base location to the processing location, (See Claim 14)
as well as a risk factor associated with moving through each of the plurality of possible trajectory paths from the base location to the processing location. (See Claim 14)
47. The processing system as claimed in claim 46, wherein the unchanging portion of the trajectory path is determined to be a path with the associated shortest time required to move from the base location to a processing location and (See Claim 15)
having a risk factor that is below a pre-defined maximum risk factor. (See Claim 15)
48. The processing system as claimed in claim 46, wherein the unchanging portion of the trajectory path is determined to be a path with the lowest risk factor associated with moving from the base location to a processing location and having a risk factor that is below a pre-defined maximum time. (See Claim 16)
49. The processing system as claimed in claim 42, wherein the trajectory data is provided by experience of the programmable motion device including the end effector. (See Claim 12)
50. The processing system as claimed in claim 42, wherein the trajectory data is provided by learned knowledge information from a plurality of processing systems. (See Claim 26)
51. The processing system as claimed in claim 42, wherein the trajectory path is determined responsive to trajectory data regarding a plurality of possible trajectory paths from multiple base locations to the processing location. (See Claim 25)
52. A method of providing processing of homogenous and non-homogenous objects in both structured and cluttered environments, said method comprising the steps of: (See Claim 1)
acquiring perception data of an object of the objects at an input location using a perception system; (See Claim 1)
grasping the object at the input location using an end effector of a programmable motion device to permit the object to be moved from the input location to a destination location; and (See Claim 1)
determining a trajectory path of the end effector from the input location to the destination location, said trajectory path determined using an associated time and an associated risk corresponding to the identity or location of the object at the input location provided by a perception system; and (See Claim 1 and Claim 42)
moving the object to the destination using the trajectory path.
53. The method as claimed in claim 52, wherein the trajectory path is determined using experience moving other objects with similar identity, location or orientation. (See Claim 13)
54. The method as claimed in claim 53, wherein the experience moving other objects with similar identity or location is provided by a different processing system. (See Claim 26)
59. The method as claimed in claim 52, wherein the objects at the input location are provided in an input container, and (See Claim 33)
wherein the trajectory path for moving the object is determined using the location of the input container or orientation of the input container at the input location. (See Claim 33)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure because the prior art references contain subject matter that relates to one or more of Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS RANDAZZO whose telephone number is (313)446-4903. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:00am and 4:00pm ET Monday through Thursday and 9:00am and 11:00am ET on Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Scott, can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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 the Patent Center. Unpublished application information in the Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in the Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about the 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.
/THOMAS RANDAZZO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655 October 15, 2026
