Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is responsive to Application No. 19/171,632 and the claims filed on 4/7/2025.
3. Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2025 has been fully considered by the Examiner.
The Examiner notes, however, that the IDS filed 6/10/2025 is blank and there are no cited references within it.
Double Patenting
5. Claims 1 and 4-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,269,170 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope and would be fully encompassed and/or anticipated by the copending application.
6. 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the copending application, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations are provided in bold):
A method of training a model to control autonomous movement of a robot body, the method comprising:
accessing augmented training data, the augmented training data comprising a plurality of augmented instances of the robot body performing at least one action in at least one augmented environment, wherein each augmented instance comprises:
action data comprising sensor data recorded by at least one sensor of the robot body while the robot performs at least one action, the sensor data including movement data that defines an action path in space through which at least one actuatable member of the robot body moves;
context data at least partially representing an environment of the robot body, wherein the context data includes chroma key context data corresponding to at least one augmentable region of the environment outside of the action path of the robot body based on the action data; and
at least one visual virtual object added to at least one augmentable region of the environment outside of the action path of the robot body based on the action data; and
training the model based at least in part on the augmented training data.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the copending application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 4-11, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the copending application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 12, the Applicant provides similar limitations as in claim 1 of the copending application, wherein both of the respective claim(s) include (similar limitations are provided in bold):
A robot comprising:
a robot body comprising at least one actuatable member;
at least one sensor;
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor and storing a control model comprising processor-executable instructions and/or data that, when executed by the at least one processor, control autonomous actions of the robot body, the control model trained with augmented training data comprising a plurality of augmented instances of the robot body performing at least one action in at least one augmented environment, wherein each augmented instance comprises:
action data comprising sensor data recorded by the at least one sensor while the robot body performs at least one action, the sensor data including movement data that defines an action path in space through which at least one actuatable member of the robot body moves;
context data at least partially representing an environment of the robot body, wherein the context data includes chroma key context data corresponding to at least one augmentable region of the environment outside of the action path of the robot body based on the action data; and
at least one visual virtual object added to at least one augmentable region of the environment outside of the action path of the robot body based on the action data.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) in the claim of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the copending application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Regarding claims 13-18, Applicant provides similar limitations as provided in at least claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, and 15 of the issued U.S. Patent. Although conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because removing inherent and/or unnecessary limitation(s)/step(s) or adding an element and its function would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well settled that the adding or deleting of an element and its function(s) as in the claims of the present application are an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969). Omission of a referenced element or step whose function is not needed would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner further notes wherein although the claims are not identical (slightly broader), they are commensurate in scope to the claim limitations provided in the copending application, and likewise would anticipate the currently provided claim limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-18 are allowed over the prior art of record.
US 20240058954 A1 to Bennice et al. (hereinafter Bennice) was deemed to be the closest prior art. In addition, US 10981272 B1 to Nagarajan et al. (hereinafter Nagarajan) and US 20220076587 A1 to Murphy et al. (hereinafter Murphy) are deemed to be relevant art and are discussed in further detail below.
Regarding Claim 1, Bennice teaches a method of training a model to control autonomous movement of a robot body, the method comprising: accessing augmented training data ([0043] via “FIG. 2 schematically depicts an example of how a robot's perception of a physical environment in which the robot operates may be augmented as described herein to facilitate training episode generation.”), the augmented training data comprising a plurality of augmented instances ([0044] via “With techniques described herein, it is possible to train a robot control policy used by robot 200 by operating robot 200 physically within empty room 250 to generate numerous training episodes.”) of the robot body performing at least one action in at least one augmented environment ([0044] via “Each training episode may feature physical robot 200 having virtual interactions with one or more virtual objects that are injected into perception data used by robot 200.”),
wherein each augmented instance comprises: action data comprising sensor data recorded by at least one sensor of the robot body while the robot performs at least one action ([0033] via “A sensor pose engine 134 may be configured to determine, based on various control and/or localization data provided by (or intercepted from) robot 100, one or more physical poses of one or more physical sensors 108 of robot 100, …. … determine a location and/or orientation … of a camera or LIDAR sensor onboard robot 100 within a physical environment in which robot 100 operates.”);
at least one visual virtual object added to at least one augmentable region of the environment ([0032] via “A user may interact with GUI 135 to trigger and/or control aspects of simulation system 130, e.g., to control a simulation engine 136 that simulates a virtual environment or a virtual object engine 138 that adds virtual objects to that simulated environment.”); and
training the model based at least in part on the augmented training data ([0038] via “In various implementations, such a virtual interaction may be used as feedback to train a robot control policy, e.g., as a penalty for reinforcement learning.”).
Bennice has many deficiencies when it comes to the remainder of claim 1. For one, Bennice fails to teach the sensor data including movement data of an action path in space that the robot moves through. Further, Bennice is silent on the context data and what the context data represents. Further, Bennice is silent on the added visual virtual objects added to the augmentable region of the environment being outside of the action path of the robot.
Nagarajan teaches the sensor data including movement data that defines an action path in space through which at least one actuatable member of the robot body moves (Col. 9 lines 17-21, where “Data from accelerometers, gyroscopes, or other sensors may be recorded to provide information on the position, orientation, or movement of the robot 110 or components of the robot 110 throughout the grasp attempt.”).
However, there are still many deficiencies to the teachings of Nagarajan versus the Applicant’s claims. Nagarajan still fails to teach the context data and what the context data represents. Further Nagarajan fails to teach adding a visual virtual object to the augmentable region that is outside of an action path of the robot.
Murphy teaches context data at least partially representing an environment of the robot body ([0041] via “… the robot emulator comprises at least one video of a robot performing a manoeuvre, and in which the step of the robot emulator executing the compiled control command comprises the step of the robot emulator rendering a video of a robot performing a manoeuvre in front of the background in the video feed pane and moving the video of the robot performing a manoeuvre relative to the background in the video feed pane.”), wherein the context data includes chroma key context data corresponding to at least one augmentable region of the environment ([0080] via “The procedure that is followed to produce these videos and make them browser friendly is as follows: … Secondly, the robot is recorded on top of a green screen for easy post processing. Third, even lighting is used to allow for the bright green screen to be “keyed out” of the video. Fourth, the video is imported into Adobe® Premiere Pro®, and the “chroma key” tool is used to remove the green colours of the greens screen. Fifth, the robot video is overlayed on top of the pod video.”).
While Murphy teaches the above, the combination of Bennice, Nagarajan, and Murphy still have deficiencies of what they disclose versus what the Applicant claims. Murphy still fails to teach the chroma key context data corresponding to at least one augmentable region of the environment outside of the action path of the robot body, as Murphy teaches the action path of the robot body being within the chroma keyed augmentable region of the environment in paragraphs [0016] and [0088] of the disclosure and Figure 5 of Murphy. Murphy also fails to teach adding a visual virtual object to the augmentable region that is outside of an action path of the robot.
After analyzing the subject matter of the three inventions above (Bennice, Nagarajan, and Murphy), there is no obvious reason to combine the references in order to satisfy all of the subject matter of claim 1. Further, combining all three references still leaves deficiencies where the three references still fail to teach the discussed parts of claim 1. With these factors in mind, claim 1 is deemed to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, these claims depend from claim 1, and therefore are allowable for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 12, this claim contains similar limitations to claim 1 discussed above, and therefore is allowable for similar reasons as claim 1 is.
Regarding dependent claims 13-18, these claims depend from claim 12, and therefore are allowable for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 12.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to BYRON X KASPER whose telephone number is (571)272-3895.
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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.
/BYRON XAVIER KASPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights