CTNF 19/108,232 CTNF 101637 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-22 as filed, are currently pending and have been considered below. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Figure 5 is missing true/false decision symbol labels. 0044 describes proceeding from action 509 to 510 in the case where the decision is false or “no”. Please add “No” near action 509 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Claim 11 begins with “A control node for handling for handling communication with a robot device,” Examiner suggests changing to, and will further evaluate the claims if as written as “A control node for handling communication with a robot device,” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-23 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? Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 11, and 22 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below: STEP 1 : Do claims 1, 11 and 22 fall within one of the statutory categories ? Claims 1 and 11 are a method and a system, and as such fall within one of the statutory categories. However, claim 22 is directed to a computer program product, stored in a computer readable medium. Under current office policy, if a claim is directed toward a medium, and the medium is undefined in the specification, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of that medium includes, statutory non-transitory media, and non-statutory transitory media, or signals. In the current specification, there is no explicit definition provided for computer readable media, as such the claim is directed to a form of energy and is non-statutory . STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea ? Yes, claims 1 and 11 are directed to mental processes. With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas: 1. Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; 2. 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 3. Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The system of claim 1 and method of claim 11 contain a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The claims merely seek to determine and select, this can be performed by a human mentally, and as such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Therefore, limitation of “ determining/determine a time limit ” and “ selecting/select the control command type ” in claims 1 and 11 is a mental process. STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application ? No, the claims do 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; 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. Claims 1 and 11 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While claim 1 does recite that the method is for “ a robot device ”, there are no limitations in the body of the claim that recite the inclusion of a robot. Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case in claim 22, “ a computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor ”, i.e., a computer. Therefore, it is generally linking to a technological environment, i.e., computer. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application. STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do 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. Claims 1, 11, and 22 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The limitation(s) identified as generally linking in step 2A qualifies as generally linking in step 2B as well. Furthermore, in claims 1 and 11 the “ send the selected control command type to the robot device ” is receiving or transmitting data. And as such has been recognized as well-understood routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d). CONCLUSION Thus, since claims 1, 11, and 22 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 11, and 22 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter. DEPENDENT CLAIMS Dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 23 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of controlling a robot. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-20, and 23 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 22. Therefore, claims 1-23 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 9 and 19 recite the limitation "it is assumed" in line 2. The assumption is not defined by the claim, 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. Thus, the current state of the robot has been rendered indefinite as it is based on an assumption. Claims 9 and 19 will be further examined in light of the art as if they read “wherein when the control command in a next control cycle does not arrive to the robot device, it is assumed that the last control command is executed by the robot device until a new control command arrives.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7 , 10-17 , and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaschler (US Patent application 20210339390 A1 hereinafter “Gaschler”) in view of Fay et al (U.S. Patent Application 20230234229 A1, which claims priority to US Provisional Application 63/301842 filed on 01/21/22, hereinafter “Fay”) . Regarding Claim 1 , Gaschler discloses in figure 1 A method performed by a control node (150) for handling a control command (125) for a robot device (173) , the method comprising: Gaschler pertains to the correctable path planning for a robotic arm and further discloses determining a time limit for when a maximum tolerable deviation from a trajectory is reached , for at least two control command types, the at least two control command types comprising a joint-space command and a Cartesian-space command; Gaschler describes the maximum tolerable deviation from a trajectory in terms of a cost function, specifying “The deviation cost is associated with a distance between the location of the end effector and the goal path” (0060). And while Gaschler does not specifically determine a time, a time-to-distance function is described as “The initial velocity profile is a function from distance travelled along the path to speed. The system can calculate, from the initial velocity profile, a function from time to distance. The system can then compose the time-to-distance function with the joint-space path function to calculate the initial joint-space trajectory” (0063). However, Fay teaches determining a time limit for when a maximum tolerable deviation from a trajectory is reached . Fay pertains to robotic path planning to maintain an end effector within a desired space, specifying “Based on the velocity magnitude and the distance 522, an expected time to reach the boundary of the useable workspace 511 may be determined” (Figure 5b, 0109). Thus, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to define the cost function of Gaschler not with a velocity-to-distance function, but with the more direct measurement of time to reach the boundary described by Fay. Gaschler further discloses the use of both joint-space and cartesian-space commands by stating “In this specification, a robot is a machine having a base position, one or more movable components, and a kinematic model that can be used to map desired positions, poses, or both in one coordinate system, e.g., Cartesian coordinates or joint angles, into commands for physically moving the one or more movable components to the desired positions or poses” (0085). Gaschler further discloses selecting the control command type that reaches the time limit later, based on the determined time limit for the at least two control command types; and Gaschler discloses selecting a joint-space command based on a criteria by specifying “The system can then select a final joint-space trajectory based on one or more criteria, e.g. speed or reliability” 0065. Gaschler discloses selecting a Cartesian-space command based on a determined time limit by specifying “The system can also optionally optimize the Cartesian path by considering multiple paths and selecting a path that best minimizes a path optimization cost function. The path optimization cost function can include one or more of a deviation cost, an orientation cost, a singularity cost, and a variation cost” (0060). Gaschler further discloses sending the selected control command type to the robot device by stating “The ability to dynamically select from multiple commands during a real-time control cycle allows greatly increased flexibility in control over conventional robot control systems” (0096) in addition to element 155 of figure 1. Regarding Claim 3 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Gaschler further discloses wherein determining the time limit for the joint-space command comprises calculating how much time that is needed to reach a boundary surface, wherein the calculation is based on a speed of the robot device, points of the boundary surface and the trajectory. Gaschler determines time in joint-space with the aforementioned time-to-distance function, detailing “The initial velocity profile is a function from distance travelled along the path to speed. The system can calculate, from the initial velocity profile, a function from time to distance. The system can then compose the time-to-distance function with the joint-space path function to calculate the initial joint-space trajectory” (0063). Additionally, Gaschler discloses the time to reach the boundary surface with the above mentioned deviation cost. Regarding Claim 4 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Gaschler further discloses wherein determining the time limit for the Cartesian-space command comprises calculating how much time that is needed to reach the boundary surface, wherein the calculation is based on the speed of the robot device, points of the boundary surface and the trajectory. Gaschler determines time in Cartesian-space with the aforementioned time-to-distance function, detailing “The system can calculate, from the adjusted velocity profile, a function from time to distance. The system can then compose the time-to-distance function with the Cartesian path to calculate the function from time to Carian pose. The resulting function is the Cartesian trajectory” (0069). Additionally, Gaschler discloses the time to reach the boundary surface with the above mentioned deviation cost. Regarding Claim 5 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Gaschler further discloses in figure 1 wherein the speed (171n) of the robot device, the trajectory (125) and the points of the boundary surface are known by the control node (150) . Gaschler provides further detail on the inputs to the control node by stating “ Process parameters can include one or more of: an angle of a rotation axis of the tip of the tool with respect to the surface of the workpiece (e.g., a tilt of the rotation angle); a distance between the normal to the tool and the surface of the workpiece; a distance between the orthogonal to the tool and the surface of the workpiece; a translational or angular velocity of the tool relative to the path; a translational or angular acceleration of the tool; a distance between the end effector and the goal path; or a radius of a corner along the path” (0041-0049). In addition to the deviation cost, Gaschler discloses the boundary surface as “a range of permitted deviation” (0058). Regarding Claim 6 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Gaschler further discloses in figure 2 wherein the robot device (173) is a link of a robot arm (203) . Regarding Claim 7 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Gaschler further discloses in figure 1 wherein the trajectory (125) is a planned trajectory further stating “Prior to execution, the offline planner 120 generates a Cartesian trajectory 125 for the robot to follow based on goal path that the end effector of the robot should follow” (0031). Regarding Claim 10 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Gaschler further discloses wherein the control node is a proportional integral derivative, PID, controller. Gaschler details the use of feedback control in 0090 but does not specify the use of a PID controller. A PID controller is a standard feedback controller design and one of ordinary skill in the art of control theory would have known to use a PID controller to provide the feedback control disclosed by Gaschler. Claims 11-17 ,and 20 are rejected in the same manner as claims 1-7, and 10 above Regarding Claim 22 , Gaschler discloses A computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for handling a control command for a robot device, the method comprising: Gaschler discloses the use of a processor by detailing “Embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented as one or more computer programs, i.e., one or more modules of computer program instructions encoded on a tangible non-transitory storage medium for execution by, or to control the operation of, data processing apparatus” (0100). The remainder of claim 22 is rejected in a similar manner to claim 1 above. Regarding Claim 23 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 3, and Gaschler discloses the remainder of claim 23 in a similar fashion as in claim 4 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 , 9 , 18 , and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaschler in view of Fay, further in view of Racz et all (U.S. Patent Application 20200189100 A1 hereinafter “Racz”) . Regarding Claim 8 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Gaschler further discloses wherein the time limit for when the maximum tolerable deviation from a trajectory is reached is determined when the control commands stop arriving to the robot device . As described in the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 above Gaschler teaches the time limit to a maximum deviation in terms of time-to-distance function and deviation cost. Gaschler is silent as to when this determination is made. However, Racz, which pertains to a technique for providing reliable control of a robot in a cloud robotics system, teaches when to make such a determination in step S416 of figure 4c, detailing “If it is determined that the next command has not been received in time, on the other hand, it is checked, in step S418, whether the predetermined safety time limit is reached” (0046). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art of robotic control to use the timing structure disclosed by Racz to specify when to use the time-to-distance function and deviation cost of Gaschler to determine the time limit to control a robot within acceptable tolerances. Regarding Claim 9 , Gaschler in view of Fay discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and Racz further discloses wherein when the control command in a next control cycle does not arrive to the robot device, it is assumed that the last control command is executed by the robot device until a new control command arrives. Gaschler teaches how a control node sends commands to a robot, but is silent on the state of the robot absent the command signals. However, Racz teaches such a robot state, detailing “The speed commands may in this case correspond to previous commands (i.e., commands sent in a previous interval according to the continuous control scheme)” (0033). Therefore, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the continuous control scheme of Racz to provided the details of the robot state of Gaschler when the control signals are absent. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Daniel Neckel whose telephone number is (571)272-9537. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-3. 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, Wade Miles can be reached at 571-270-7777. 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. /NATHAN DANIEL NECKEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3656 /WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/108,232 Page 2 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/108,232 Page 3 Art Unit: 3656 Application/Control Number: 19/108,232 Page 4 Art Unit: 3656
Prosecution Insights