DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,289,517. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite the same or similar computing system and computer-implemented method to interact with robotic control using natural language commands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 6-10, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0178076 to Abramson et al. (“Abramson”).
Regarding claim 6, Abramson teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a user request to control a robotic device, the user request including a natural language description to instruct the robotic device to perform a sequence of operations (a user provides a natural language text sequence through an input interface, see paragraph [0197]; the device carries out tasks specified by a user by performing actions that control the devices, see paragraph [0091]);
determining a state of the robotic device (state representation is received as input, see paragraph [0033]);
sending a request to a language model (LM), the request including at least:
a high-level system state of the robotic device determined based at least in part on the low-level system state; at least a portion of the user request; and at least a portion of mapping data that associates high-level commands with respective low-level machine controls for the robotic device (the method for controlling an agent interacting with an environment includes processing the state representation using a high-level controller to generate respective low-level input and processing the input for the position using an action policy neural network to generate the action to be performed by the agent and causing the agent to perform the sequence of actions, see paragraph [0028]. Further, mapping of high-level actions into low-level commands is discussed in paragraph [0144]); and
receiving, from the LM and in response to the request, at least one high-level command to cause the robotic device to perform the sequence of operations (the high-level controller neutral network is discussed in paragraph [0143] and receives commands that then auto-regressively generate respective low-level input.);
associating, using the mapping, the at least one high-level command with at least one low-level machine control (a control system for the agent maps high-level actions into low-level commands in order to control the agent, see paragraph [0144]); and
sending the at least one low-level machine control to the robotic device to cause the robotic device to perform the sequence of operations (the low-level commands and controls cause the robotic device to perform a sequence of operations, for example in the case of paragraph [0144] the agent is controlled by specifying forces or torque to apply to the joints or other portions of the body of the agent) .
Regarding claim 7, Abramson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving logic to implement the at least one low-level machine control; and sending the logic to the robotic device to cause the robotic device to perform the sequence of operations (paragraph [0203] teaches logic circuitry in addition to hardware and code to create the execution environment for computer programs).
Regarding claim 8, Abramson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving sensory input from the robotic device; converting the sensory input to high-level sensor observation data; translating the high-level sensor observation data to formatted high-level sensor observation data for processing by the LM; and sending the formatted high-level sensor observation data to the LM in association with the user request (an observation image captured by the agent is the sensory input from the robotic device).
Regarding claim 9, Abramson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the user request includes a description of an object to track using the robotic device, and wherein the at least one low-level machine control causes the robotic device to locate the object (the goal may be to locate an object of interest and to move an object of interest, paragraph [0082], or to grab/pull an object of interest in paragraph [01444], these actions would require tracking the object in order to locate and interact with the object).
Regarding claim 10, Abramson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving a plurality of video frames from the robotic device; processing at least some of the plurality of video frames using a vision model to locate the object and generate a bounding box around the object; and sending data descriptive of at least one of the bounding box or location information of the object to the LM. (Abramson teaches receiving images, reference number 110, captured by a camera sensor of the agent, reference number 104, see paragraph [0064]; the agent then is able to locate an object of interest in the environment as stated in paragraph [0082], in the example of paragraph [0180] the agent receives a request to locate a drum and outputs text to specify the color of the located drum.)
Regarding claim 15, Abramson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the robotic device is at least one of a multiaxial camera device, a robotic arm, or a remotely controlled vehicle (paragraph [0082] gives an example of the agent being a vehicle, or a camera in paragraph [0194]).
Claims 16, 18-20 are rejected similarly to claims 6, 7, 9, and 15.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abramson as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0014609 to Laska (“Laska”).
Regarding claim 11, Abramson teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, but is silent on the robotic device is a multiaxial camera device; and the user request includes a request to zoom in on an object using the robotic device, and wherein the at least one low-level machine control causes the multiaxial camera device to locate the object, zoom in on the object, and record imagery of the object.
Laska teaches a smart home environment including service robots that receive commands and autonomously carry out household tasks. In one example, the robot receives a zoom command and changes motion parameter settings for a multiaxial camera based on the zoom commands (see paragraphs [0078], [0206]).
It 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 to modify the teaching of Abramson with that of Laska to include zoom commands as one of the commands that may be inputted by the user and to subsequently utilize the low-level machine controls to cause the camera to zoom and carry out associated tasks to expand the useful scope of control of the agent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY R HSU whose telephone number is (571)270-3012. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on (571)272-7372. 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.
AMY R. HSU
Examiner
Art Unit 2664
/AMY R HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights