DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
First, the scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… a virtual Discrete Action Space (DAS) …. a reward function for a plurality of stacking positions corresponding to the virtual DAS ….” and “… using the plurality of stacking positions from an updated virtual DAS” (added remarks).
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim.
Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “virtual DAS” with respect to the receiving dimension and reward function and (ii) how it is implemented and updated within claimed invention. For instance, the specification appears to disclose that (i) the “virtual DAS” is carried by the end effector of the robotic agent, e.g., as a camera (see specification (Pub.: par. 53 and 60) and (ii) the “virtual DAS” contains three type of stacking position (success, neighbor and explore stacking positions) – see specification (Pub.: par. 53, 54).
Second, the scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… if the plurality of new preconditions are successfully satisfied, the object-invariant stacking operation is performed successfully by stacking the object on top of the bottom object at a success stacking position, ….” and “performing the object-invariant stacking operation on the bottom object, using the plurality of stacking positions from an updated virtual DAS” (added remarks).
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim.
Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “performing the object-invariant stacking operation” with respect to the new precondition and updated virtual DAS within the claim invention and (ii) how it is implemented within claimed invention. For instance, the specification appears to disclose that (i) the robotic agent “performing the object-invariant stacking operation” (see specification (Pub.: par. 30)) and (ii) the adaptive task and motion planning (ATAMP) performing the object-invariant stacking operation” – see specification (Pub.: par. 46).
Claims 2-7 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
Claim 2 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… during inferencing stage … ” (added remarks). The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “inferencing stage” with respect to the trained ATAMP model and the object-invariant stacking operations and (ii) how it is implemented within claimed invention. The specification broadly cites the term “inferencing stage” without providing any description / definition of the term (specification (Pub.: par. 106)).
Claim 8 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
First, the scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… a virtual Discrete Action Space (DAS) …. a reward function for a plurality of stacking positions corresponding to the virtual DAS ….” and “… using the plurality of stacking positions from an updated virtual DAS” (added remarks).
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim.
Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “virtual DAS” with respect to the receiving dimension and reward function and (ii) how it is implemented and updated within claimed invention. For instance, the specification appears to disclose that (i) the “virtual DAS” is carried by the end effector of the robotic agent, e.g., as a camera (see specification (Pub.: par. 53 and 60) and (ii) the “virtual DAS” contains three type of stacking position (success, neighbor and explore stacking position) – see specification (Pub.: par. 53, 54).
Second, the scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… if the plurality of new preconditions are successfully satisfied, the object-invariant stacking operation is performed successfully by stacking the object on top of the bottom object at a success stacking position, ….” and “performing the object-invariant stacking operation on the bottom object, using the plurality of stacking positions from an updated virtual DAS” (added remarks).
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim.
Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “performing the object-invariant stacking operation” with respect to the new precondition and updated virtual DAS within the claim invention and (ii) how it is implemented within claimed invention. For instance, the specification appears to disclose that (i) the robotic agent “performing the object-invariant stacking operation” (see specification (Pub.: par. 30)) and (ii) the adaptive task and motion planning (ATAMP) performing the object-invariant stacking operation” – see specification (Pub.: par. 46).
Claims 9-14 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
Claim 9 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… during inferencing stage … ” (added remarks). The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “inferencing stage” with respect to the trained ATAMP model and the object-invariant stacking operations and (ii) how it is implemented within claimed invention. The specification broadly cites the term “inferencing stage” without providing any description / definition of the term (specification (Pub.: par. 106)).
Claim 15 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
First, the scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… a virtual Discrete Action Space (DAS) …. a reward function for a plurality of stacking positions corresponding to the virtual DAS ….” and “… using the plurality of stacking positions from an updated virtual DAS” (added remarks).
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim.
Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “virtual DAS” with respect to the receiving dimension and reward function and (ii) how it is implemented and updated within claimed invention. For instance, the specification appears to disclose that (i) the “virtual DAS” is carried by the end effector of the robotic agent, e.g., as a camera (see specification (Pub.: par. 53 and 60) and (ii) the “virtual DAS” contains three type of stacking position (success, neighbor and explore stacking positions) – see specification (Pub.: par. 53, 54).
Second, the scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… if the plurality of new preconditions are successfully satisfied, the object-invariant stacking operation is performed successfully by stacking the object on top of the bottom object at a success stacking position, ….” and “performing the object-invariant stacking operation on the bottom object, using the plurality of stacking positions from an updated virtual DAS” (added remarks).
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim.
Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “performing the object-invariant stacking operation” with respect to the new precondition and updated virtual DAS within the claim invention and (ii) how it is implemented within claimed invention. For instance, the specification appears to disclose that (i) the robotic agent “performing the object-invariant stacking operation” (see specification (Pub.: par. 30)) and (ii) the adaptive task and motion planning (ATAMP) performing the object-invariant stacking operation” – see specification (Pub.: par. 46)).
Claims 16-20 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claims.
Claim 16 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is 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 or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The scope of the claim invention is not distinct; the claim language does not distinctly identify “… during inferencing stage … ” (added remarks). The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of the above limitation cannot be ascertained to define the boundaries of the subject matter encompassed by the claim. Applicant is kindly invited to clearly (i) define the term “inferencing stage” with respect to the trained ATAMP model and the object-invariant stacking operations and (ii) how it is implemented within claimed invention. The specification broadly cites the term “inferencing stage” without providing any description / definition of the term (specification (Pub.: par. 106).
Applicants should provide concise specification support (page number(s) and paragraph(s)/lines) for the claim limitations, arguments/remarks with respect to the above rejection, and /or any amendment to the claim limitation(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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 H. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights