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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “determining a second circular error based on:
the (m-1)th point and a circular sub-path including a (m-4)th point, the (m- 3)th point and the mth point, and the (m-2)th point and a circular sub-path including a (m- 4)th point, the (m-3)th point and the mth point or
the (m-2)th point and a circular sub-path including the (m-4)th point, the (m- 1)th point and the mth point, and the (m-3)th point and a circular sub-path including the (m-4)th point, the (m-1)th point and the mth point, or
the (m-3)th point and a circular sub-path including the (m-4)th point, the (m- 2)th point and the mth point, and the (m-1)th point and a circular sub-path including the (m-4)th point, the (m-2)th point and the mth point; and”.
Based on the claim language, the claim should read, “determining a second circular error based on:
the (m-1)th point and a circular sub-path including a (m-4)th point, the (m- 3)th point and the mth point, and the (m-2)th point and the circular sub-path including the (m- 4)th point, the (m-3)th point and the mth point or
the (m-2)th point and a circular sub-path including the (m-4)th point, the (m- 1)th point and the mth point, and the (m-3)th point and the circular sub-path including the (m-4)th point, the (m-1)th point and the mth point, or
the (m-3)th point and a circular sub-path including the (m-4)th point, the (m- 2)th point and the mth point, and the (m-1)th point and the circular sub-path including the (m-4)th point, the (m-2)th point and the mth point; and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16-19 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.
Regarding claim 16, the claim language recites “…determining a second linear error based on the (m-1)th point and a linear sub-path including a (m-3)th point and a mth point, and a (m-2)th point and a linear sub-path including a (m-3)th point and a mth point, or determining a second circular error based on:”. However, these points are already disclosed previously in claim 15. Therefore, it’s unclear based on the claim language, whether the points in claim 16 are referring to the same corresponding points as disclosed in claim 15 or different ones. For the purpose of examination, Examiner considers these points to be any of the same or different points from the corresponding points disclosed in claim 15.
Regarding claims 17-19, these claims are either directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected base claim, and also inherit the deficiencies described above. Therefore, they are also rejected under this section for at least their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Examiner notes wherein all claims have been addressed below in view of the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner, in light of the 35 USC 112 rejections provided herein.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, it is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to
determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
The claim includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). It recites:
A method for obtaining a target path of a robot, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of points of an original path of the robot;
determining, among the plurality of points, a first set of points to be included in the target path of the robot and a second set of points to be excluded from the target path;
and determining the target path by determining, based on the first set of points and the second set of points, at least one sub-path of the target path as linear or circular.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, under BRI, obtaining a plurality of points, determining a first set of points and a second set of points and determining the target path in the context of this claim encompasses a person performing the activity using human mind. In the alternative, these activities can also be performed using pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, no additional elements are present in claim 1. 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) add nothing 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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does 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. As discussed above no additional elements are present in claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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. Therefore, these dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suvitie (US 20210114622 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Suvitie teaches a method for obtaining a target path of a robot, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of points of an original path of the robot (Fig 4A-E, para 0066-0069 wherein path with plurality of points is provided);
determining, among the plurality of points, a first set of points to be included in the target path of the robot and a second set of points to be excluded from the target path (Fig 4A-E, para 0063-0069 wherein among plurality of points, a set of points is removed from the target path and remaining points are included in the target path; “A clean-up operation may be provided to remove any possible excess waypoints”);
and determining the target path by determining, based on the first set of points and the second set of points, at least one sub-path of the target path as linear or circular (Fig 4A-E, para 0063-0069, 0084 wherein the target path is determined by determining a straightened path based on the initial path; “As a result, the path is straightened by replacing the path segment via waypoints n, n+1, and n+2 with a new straight path segment 40 between waypoints n and n+2 (denoted by reference 42)”; “If the line does not intersect the obstacle, the at least one turn point can be removed at 104 from the initial path to determine a straightened path of travel”; “[0070] A problem is how to find a straightened line. If the path is calculated by grid based or tile based algorithm, for example, the determined path may not necessarily be the straightest. For straightening turn points (e.g. waypoints) calculated from the algorithms may be used together with start and target points in the path…”).
Regarding claim 20, Suvitie teaches a device for a robot (0004 wherein “Further non-limiting examples of unmanned moving devices comprise machines such as robots, manipulators and other machines that can move in an area or space without need of direct control by a human operator”), comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 1 when executed by the at least one processor (at least 0043 wherein “[0043] FIG. 2 shows an example of control apparatus 22 that may execute any of the herein described operations at a moving device. The apparatus 22 comprises at least one processor 26, 27 and at least one memory 28. The at least one memory comprises computer code that, when executed on the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to perform at least one of the herein described operations”).
Regarding claim 21, Suvitie teaches a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processing unit, cause the processing unit to perform the method of claim 1 (at least 0043 wherein “[0043] FIG. 2 shows an example of control apparatus 22 that may execute any of the herein described operations at a moving device. The apparatus 22 comprises at least one processor 26, 27 and at least one memory 28. The at least one memory comprises computer code that, when executed on the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to perform at least one of the herein described operations”).
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(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suvitie (US 20210114622 A1) in view of Hussain (US 20050216182 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Suvitie teaches determining the first set of points and the second set of points by performing a path processing algorithm (para 00661-0071 wherein “For straightening turn points (e.g. waypoints) calculated from the algorithms may be used together with start and target points in the path”; “[0071] FIG. 4E illustrates the final, cleaned path of travel 48. The looping clean-up algorithm can stop in response to detection that there are no n+2 waypoints left in the initial rough path”).
However, Suvitie fails to teach the first and second set of points are determined by performing a genetic algorithm.
Hussain teaches a path optimization method wherein the first set of point and second set of points are determined using a genetic algorithm (0006, 0055, 0073 wherein “In one embodiment, the systems and methods disclosed herein employ a domain-specific multi-objective optimization algorithm, such as, without limitation, a context-influenced genetic algorithm, to dynamically determine paths for one or more mobile agents to accomplish one or more mission goals”; “[0055] A second exemplary mode is used when all missions have been assigned within a plan. According to the embodiment, the mission-allocation advocate randomly removes a sequence of one or more mission points--as well as all intermediate waypoints--from a path”; “[0073] A remove-section mutation operator randomly selects two waypoints in the chromosome and removes them and waypoints in between”).
Therefore, 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 Suvitie’s teachings of having a path obtaining method and determining the first set of points and the second set of points by performing a path processing algorithm to incorporate Hussain’s teachings of a path optimization method wherein the first set of point and second set of points are determined using a genetic algorithm in order for determining the first set of points and the second set of points by performing a genetic algorithm. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Suvitie teaches determining the target path along with the first set of points and the second set of points by performing a path processing algorithm (para 00661-0071 wherein “For straightening turn points (e.g. waypoints) calculated from the algorithms may be used together with start and target points in the path”; “[0071] FIG. 4E illustrates the final, cleaned path of travel 48. The looping clean-up algorithm can stop in response to detection that there are no n+2 waypoints left in the initial rough path”).
However, Suvitie fails to teach determining the target path along with the first set of points and the second set of points by performing the genetic algorithm.
Hussain teaches a path optimization method wherein the target path along with the first set of point and second set of points are determined using the genetic algorithm (0006, 0055, 0073 wherein “In one embodiment, the systems and methods disclosed herein employ a domain-specific multi-objective optimization algorithm, such as, without limitation, a context-influenced genetic algorithm, to dynamically determine paths for one or more mobile agents to accomplish one or more mission goals”; “[0055] A second exemplary mode is used when all missions have been assigned within a plan. According to the embodiment, the mission-allocation advocate randomly removes a sequence of one or more mission points--as well as all intermediate waypoints--from a path”; “[0073] A remove-section mutation operator randomly selects two waypoints in the chromosome and removes them and waypoints in between”).
Therefore, 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 Suvitie’s teachings of having a target path based on the first set of points and the second set of points and determining the first set of points and the second set of points by performing a genetic algorithm to incorporate Hussain’s teachings of the target path along with the first set of point and second set of points are determined using the genetic algorithm in order for determining the target path along with the first set of points and the second set of points by performing the genetic algorithm. Doing so would constitute combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAGAR KC whose telephone number is (571)272-7337. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (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.
/SAGAR KC/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights