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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and presented for examination.
Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include at least the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description (Page numbers are from the replacement specification “Substitute Specification (Clean)”):
Multiple nodes “10” and Driving path “30” as described in Page 10 does not appear to be labeled on at least Figure 3 of the replacement drawings,
Terminal block “21” as described in Pages 11-12 does not appear to be labeled on at least Figure 5 of the replacement drawings,
Bidirectional block “23” as described in Page 12 does not appear to be labeled on at least Figure 6, and
Unidirectional block “22” and Unidirectional path “31” as described in Page 12 does not appear to be labeled on at least Figure 7.
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. 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 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.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “wherein the primary block search step compares, when there are two departure blocks, a distance between the departure node and a start node with a distance between the departure node and an end node to delete a random departure block so as to minimize an amount of computation”. It is not clear to the examiner what is being compared (e.g. whether the departure node corresponds to one or both of departure blocks, etc.). According to the examiner’s best knowledge and consistent with the instant specification (see at least Page 17, Line 10 – Page 18, Line 10), the claim will be treated as deleting a redundant block to reduce repetitive calculations.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “wherein the secondary block search step preferentially designates a subsequent block with a high straightness as a path using an arrival node distance, which is a distance between the subsequent block for which the drivability has been determined and the arrival node, and a vehicle maintenance angle in the subsequent block for which the drivability has been determined”. The phrase “high straightness” uses a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase 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. According to the examiner’s best knowledge and consistent with the instant specification (see at least Page 26, Line 17 – Page 27, Line 5), the claim will be treated as path planning based on a distance and angle.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method for path planning of a driving robot using a feature map, the method comprising:
a feature map generation step of generating, by at least one processor, a feature map including multiple nodes and multiple blocks on the basis of a topological map for a random space;
a primary block search step of acquiring, by the at least one processor, a departure node and an arrival node from among the multiple nodes, and designating a departure block and an arrival block on the basis of the departure node and the arrival node;
a secondary block search step of determining, by the at least one processor, the drivability of each of multiple subsequent blocks placed after the departure block to be designated as a path; and
an end step of ending, by the at least one processor, path planning if a random subsequent block is the arrival block.
Step 1: Independent claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations (represented by bolded font) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the process from being practically performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the bolded limitations in the context of claim 1 may encompass a person planning a path for a mobile robot on a paper map using an algorithm. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements (represented by underlined font) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “at least one processor”, the examiner submits that this element is recited at a high-level of generality such that the elements are considered a mere generic computer component which allows the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) do not add anything that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “at least one processor”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the component is anything other than generic processors.
Therefore, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-5, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claims 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:
Claim 2 describes additional steps for generally classifying areas on a map, which is further directed to the previously discussed mental process from claim 1 (e.g. person updates the map with labels/types).
Claim 3 describes a condition for removing a block from path planning, which is further directed to the previously discussed mental process from claim 1 (e.g. person determines whether or not to consider a pathway during path planning).
Claim 4 describes preferential decision making, which is further directed to the previously discussed mental process from claim 1 (e.g. person determines a path based on cost efficiency).
Claim 5 describes a recording medium, which is considered an additional element that will be treated the same as the additional elements above (in Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-5 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claim 1. The examiner recommends amending subject matter into the independent claim that explicitly induces a physical change/movement in response to the manipulated data (e.g. controlling a robot based on a planned path) to help place the application in a better condition for overcoming the 101 rejection, provided that it is not new matter and has support from the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR20130112507A, citations refer to English translation attached by examiner; hereinafter Park) in view of Yang et al. (US20240175702A1; hereinafter Yang).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Park discloses a method for path planning of a driving robot using a feature map (see at least Abstract, “Safe path planning method of a mobile robot”), the method comprising:
a feature map generation step of generating a feature map including multiple nodes and multiple blocks (Paragraph 0090 describes initial steps for path planning as partitioning a map into blocks (“…reads a global map of the corresponding region (S1), and constructs a grid map using a cell decomposition method on the read map (S2)”; Paragraph 0081 describes the grid map as including multiple nodes (“each node on the grid map”));
a primary block search step of acquiring a departure node and an arrival node from among the multiple nodes (Paragraph 0092, “Next, given the starting point and the destination point (S5)”), and designating a departure block and an arrival block on the basis of the departure node and the arrival node (see at least Figure 3, wherein a starting point is shown to be represented as a start block (”2”) and a destination point is represented as a goal block (”3”));
PNG
media_image1.png
241
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a secondary block search step of determining the drivability of each of multiple subsequent blocks placed after the departure block to be designated as a path (Paragraph 0093, “Next, based on a safety cost evaluation function that evaluates the safety cost of the node through a distance function from the starting node to the current node, a risk evaluation function, and an estimated cost from the current node to the target node, the nodes with the smallest safety cost among the nodes adjacent to the current node are selected to find the safest node (S7)”), and
an end step of ending path planning if a random subsequent block is the arrival block (Paragraph 0107, “Next, for the remaining uninvestigated nodes, until the destination is reached (S9), the operation of finding the safest node by selecting the nodes with the smallest safety cost as described above is repeated to establish the safest path”).
However, Park does not explicitly recite performing the steps [by at least one processor] nor that the feature map is generated [on the basis of a topological map for a random space].
Nevertheless, Yang teaches features for robotic path planning (see at least Abstract, “…planning path in a target map…”) comprising:
performing [by at least one processor] (Paragraphs 0117-0118, “FIG. 10 shows a structure diagram of an electronic device 1000 suitable for implementing embodiments of the present disclosure…the electronic device 1000 may include a processing apparatus (such as a central processing unit or a graphics processing unit) 1001”);
generating a feature map [on the basis of a topological map for a random space] (Paragraph 0066, “In step 201: a topology road network corresponding to an environment where the robot is located is acquired, and a target map is determined according to the topology road network”; Paragraph 0040, “Exemplarily, the target map is a map within the working range of the robot, and the specific representation form of the target map is not limited. For example, the target map may include…a grid-based map or a map based on a topology road network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Park invention to expand the features for map generation (Paragraph 0090) to include a processing device and features for generating a map based on a topological map, as taught by Yang, for the benefit of improving stability of path planning (Yang, Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 5, Park as currently modified teaches claim 1. However, Park does not explicitly recite: A computer-readable recording medium in which a program for performing the method for path planning of a driving robot using a feature map of claim 1 is recorded.
Nevertheless, Yang further teaches:
A computer-readable recording medium in which a program for performing the method for path planning of a driving robot using a feature map of claim 1 is recorded (Paragraph 0120, “The computer program product includes a computer program carried on a non-transitory computer-readable medium”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Park invention to expand the features for enabling robotic path planning (Paragraph 0001) to include a computer-readable recording medium, as taught by Yang, for the well-known practice of storing programs on a hardware medium.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yang and Wang et al. (CN114859909A, citations refer to English translation attached by examiner; hereinafter Wang) and Lin et al. (CN114545923A, citations refer to English translation attached be examiner, hereinafter Lin).
Regarding Claim 2, Park as currently modified teaches claim 1. However, Park does not explicitly recite: a separation node search step of searching for a separation node in the topological map; and a block designation step of extracting a random block from a topological map using the separation node as a reference, and designating a block type for the random block.
Nevertheless, Wang teaches features for robotic path planning (see at least Abstract, “path planning method and device”) comprising:
a separation node search step of searching for a separation node in the topological map (Paragraph 0044 describes identifying separation (branch) nodes (“…the specific process of preprocessing and classifying the map is as follows: nodes are divided into branch nodes and ordinary nodes. Branch nodes represent nodes where multiple paths intersect”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Park invention to expand the features for map generation (Paragraph 0090) to include features for distinguishing between separation (e.g. branch) nodes and non-separation nodes, as taught by Wang, for the benefit of reducing processing load by focusing on critical decision points.
However, Park still does not explicitly recite: a block designation step of extracting a random block from a topological map using the separation node as a reference, and designating a block type for the random block designating a block type for the random block.
Nevertheless, Lin teaches features for robotic mapping (see at least Abstract, “Robot mapping methods”) comprising:
a block designation step of extracting a random block from a topological map using the separation node as a reference, and designating a block type for the random block (Figures 4-6 and Paragraphs 0050-0062 describe steps for determining a type (e.g. leaf vs. branch) of a given block that is associated with a separation node (e.g. Figure 6 shows grid A3 being determined as a branch type (“…grid A3 is determined to be a branch node”)).
PNG
media_image2.png
219
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Park invention to expand the features for designating block types (e.g. Park, Figure 3 shows grid cells categorized into four types) to include features for determining a block type based on node information, as taught by Lin, for the benefit of reducing processing load by allowing more higher-level decisions over larger areas.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yang, Wang, Lin, and Weng et al. (CN113932812A, citations refer to English translation attached by examiner; hereinafter Weng).
Regarding Claim 3, Park as currently modified teaches claim 2. However, Park does not explicitly recite: wherein the primary block search step compares, when there are two departure blocks, a distance between the departure node and a start node with a distance between the departure node and an end node to delete a random departure block so as to minimize an amount of computation (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claim interpretation).
Nevertheless, Weng teaches features for robotic path planning (see at least Abstract, “Path planning methods”) comprising:
wherein the primary block search step compares, when there are two departure blocks, a distance between the departure node and a start node with a distance between the departure node and an end node to delete a random departure block so as to minimize an amount of computation (Paragraph 0106, “…reduces the number of shortest paths in the search process and retains only one shortest path. This is reflected in Figure 8 by the reduction in the number of grid-marked cells on a large number of identical shortest paths compared to the number of grid-marked cells in Figure 7, thereby further improving the algorithm's search efficiency”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Park invention to expand the features for path selection (Paragraph 0093) to include features for minimizing redundant path calculations, as taught by Weng, for the benefit of improving search efficiency (Weng, Paragraph 0106).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yang and Yabushita et al. (US20190015981A1; hereinafter Yabushita).
Regarding Claim 4, Park as currently modified teaches claim 1. Park does not explicitly recite: wherein the secondary block search step preferentially designates a subsequent block with a high straightness as a path using an arrival node distance, which is a distance between the subsequent block for which the drivability has been determined and the arrival node, and a vehicle maintenance angle in the subsequent block for which the drivability has been determined (see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claim interpretation).
Nevertheless, Yabushita teaches features for robotic path planning (see at least Abstract, “movement planning apparatus”) comprising:
wherein the secondary block search step preferentially designates a subsequent block with a high straightness as a path using an arrival node distance, which is a distance between the subsequent block for which the drivability has been determined and the arrival node, and a vehicle maintenance angle in the subsequent block for which the drivability has been determined (Paragraphs 0083-0084 describe prioritizing straighter pathways (“Various methods can be employed to set the provisional moving path…a path that is straighter than other paths may be preferentially set as the provisional moving path…a plurality of provisional moving paths in which the continuity of the change in the turning angle has been guaranteed are found, then a preferable provisional moving path may be selected from among them, and the selected provisional moving path may be determined to be the determined moving path. In this case, the provisional moving path in which the path cost calculated for each provisional moving path becomes minimum may be selected. Specifically, the cost for the movement between grids that are adjacent to each other on the xy plane may be determined in advance, and the provisional moving path in which the total cost accumulated up to the timing when the robot reaches the destination point becomes minimum is selected”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Park invention to expand the features for path selection (Paragraph 0093) to include a preference for straighter paths, as taught by Yabushita, for the benefit of reducing energy expenditure (Yabushita, Paragraphs 0083-0084).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights