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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 3 does not include textual descriptions in the flow chart. The examiner suggests adding the descriptions to the method flowchart corresponding to the reference characters.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is longer than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4-14 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-3 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. Claim 1 recites “the current values of the objective functions and the current criterion.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what “the current values” and “the current criterion” is referencing because there is no previous mention of current values or a current criterion. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] current values of the objective functions and [[the]] a current criterion.” Claims 2 and 3 are also rejected because they do not resolve the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception, abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claims 1-3 are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES)
Under Step 2A Prong 1, Claim 1 recites a judicial exception: an abstract idea. The limitations of “A method for planning a robot path of a robot arrangement comprising at least one robot (1), the method comprising: - providing (S10) an objective group of at least two objective functions (01, 02) to be optimized simultaneously by a robot path, each objective function mapping a robot path to a numeric value; - determining (S20) first values of the objective functions; - providing (S20) a first criterion for choosing a robot path from a path group of at least two robot paths which are pareto optimal with respect to the objective group so that for each of said robot paths none of the objective functions can be improved in value without degrading at least one of the other objective function values; and - determining (S30) a first robot path based on the first values of the objective functions and the first criterion; the method further comprising at least one cycle of the following steps: - updating (S50) the criterion and/or the values of the objective functions; and - determining (S60) an updated robot path based on the current values of the objective functions and the current criterion using decision making mitigating a rank reversal between robot paths of the path group” fall under the abstract idea of a mental process. A human can practically perform each of these steps mentally with the help of pen and paper by, for example, mentally identifying different paths for a robot, mentally evaluating them with respect to path length and time, mentally determining how the paths rank from a group of paths that are pareto optimal, mentally choosing an optimal path according to the values of the objective functions and rank, mentally iterating adjustments to the chosen path, and mentally choosing an updated path according to the adjustments while mitigating rank reversal between robot paths. The claim only determines a path and does not actually claim any robot control based on the path. Under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Re Claim 2, the limitation “wherein at least two of the objective functions are in positive or negative relation and/or have different value dimensions” is also part of the abstract idea of Step 2A Prong 1. The claim merely describes the relationship between the objective functions and the method can still be practically performed mentally with the claimed objective functions. Under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Re Claim 3, the limitation “wherein at least one of the objective functions relates to a length of the robot path, a travel-time for the robot path, an energy consumption for the robot path, a coverage of the robot path and/or a risk for the robot path” is also part of the abstract idea of Step 2A Prong 1. The claim merely describes the objective functions and the method can still be practically performed mentally with the claimed objective functions. Under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B, there are no additional elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20200292340 A1) in view of Spampinato (US 20240083027 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Li teaches
A method for planning a robot path of a robot arrangement comprising at least one robot (1), the method comprising:
- providing (S10) an objective group of at least two objective functions (01, 02) to be optimized simultaneously by a robot path, each objective function mapping a robot path to a numeric value; (“Before the alternative paths are randomly generated, a generation problem of a robot running path needs to be constructed. Specifically, decision variables, constraints, objective functions, and the like of the generation problem of the robot running path need to be set. … the objective functions may be a multiple objective function. For example, a combination of a path distance, the time duration, and the energy consumption that is most appropriate. That is, a target value of the alternative path may include one or more of the following: a path length of the alternative path, a time duration of the alternative path, and energy consumption of the alternative path.” See at least [0038])
- determining (S20) first values of the objective functions; (“determining a cost value of each alternative path in the plurality of alternative paths according to at least one target value of each alternative path, the at least one target value comprising at least one of a path length, a time duration, or an amount of energy consumption of the alternative path;” See at least [0007]; “a preset quantity of paths are randomly generated. … After the plurality of alternative paths are randomly generated, to vividly describe a dominant relationship between different paths, each alternative path may be used as a country to obtain a plurality of countries. One or more target values of each country may be calculated according to the foregoing objective function, so as to determine a cost value of each country based on the one or more target values. … for a multi-objective problem, a cost value of a country cannot be directly measured by using a certain target value, and a plurality of target values need to be combined and calculated to obtain the cost value. Cost values of the plurality of countries may be obtained through a same or similar operation on each country. Specifically, the process of determining, by the server, a cost value of each alternative path in step 303 may be as follows. The server may determine the cost value of each alternative path according to the at least one target value of each alternative path by invoking a target combination algorithm.” See at least [0040-0043])
- providing (S20) a first criterion for choosing a robot path from a path group of at least two robot paths which are pareto optimal with respect to the objective group (“Pareto front: If at least one of target values of an individual i is better than a target value of an individual h, and the other target values of the individual i are not worse than the target value of the individual h, the individual i can dominate the individual h. If no other individuals that can dominate the individual i can be found, the individual i is referred to as a Pareto optimal solution. A set including a plurality of Pareto optimal solutions is defined as a Pareto optimal solution set. All individuals in the Pareto optimal solution set are non-dominated solutions. The non-dominated solution means that none of the other individuals can dominate the individual.” See at least [0031]; “Specifically, after the at least one target value of each country is obtained, the server may determine a degree of dominance between countries according to the fast non-dominated sorting algorithm, and put each country into different levels of Pareto solution sets. Each level may correspond to a rank, and each country may obtain a corresponding rank of the country. A level of a country having a highest degree of dominance may be at a first level, and a corresponding rank may be a first rank.” See at least [0045]; Examiner Interpretation: The level or rank of a country (alternative path) is a criterion)
and - determining (S30) a first robot path based on the first values of the objective functions and the first criterion; (“the server may calculate the cost value of each country through a target combination algorithm according to the at least one target value of each country and the corresponding rank. For the multi-objective problem, status equality and optimization reciprocity exist between the target values. The target combination algorithm refers to the corresponding rank of each country, and can ensure that a cost value of a country having a better Pareto solution set is also better.” See at least [0046]; “In step 306, the server determines a target running path of the robot based on each optimized path group and a cost value of each optimized alternative path.” See at least [0085])
the method further comprising at least one cycle of the following steps: - updating (S50) the criterion and/or the values of the objective functions; and - determining (S60) an updated robot path based on the current values of the objective functions and the current criterion using decision making mitigating a rank reversal between robot paths of the path group. (“For the multi-objective problem, status equality and optimization reciprocity exist between the target values. The target combination algorithm refers to the corresponding rank of each country, and can ensure that a cost value of a country having a better Pareto solution set is also better.” See at least [0046]; “The server may compare each optimized path group, determine a successfully competed path group among the plurality of path groups, and change a second alternative path having the lowest cost value in the path group or having the lowest energy value to a second alternative path in the successfully competed path group. However, if an algorithm stop condition is satisfied, the first alternative path satisfying the preset condition is used as the target running path of the robot.” See at least [0086]; “If the algorithm stop condition is not satisfied in this case, step 305 and step 306 may be repeated until the algorithm stop condition is satisfied.” See at least [0090]; Examiner Interpretation: Repeating steps 305 and 306 is equivalent to the claimed cycle. Ensuring that a cost value of a country having a better Pareto solution set is also better mitigates the rank reversal.)
Li does not explicitly teach, but Spampinato teaches
a path group of at least two robot paths which are pareto optimal with respect to the objective group so that for each of said robot paths none of the objective functions can be improved in value without degrading at least one of the other objective function values; (“the potential motion paths X.sub.1, X.sub.2, X.sub.3, . . . may correspond to approximate Pareto-optimal solutions, each having the property that none of the objective functions can be improved (i.e., brought to decrease if the optimization is a minimization problem) without degrading some of the other objective functions.” See at least [0038])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Li to further include the teachings of Spampinato with a reasonable expectation of success to improve multi-objective optimization and prevent deadlock if the objective functions are conflicting. (See at least [0038])
Regarding Claim 2,
Li further teaches
wherein at least two of the objective functions are in positive or negative relation and/or have different value dimensions. (“the at least one target value comprising at least one of a path length, a time duration, or an amount of energy consumption of the alternative path.” See at least [0007]; “For the multi-objective problem, status equality and optimization reciprocity exist between the target values.” See at least [0046])
Regarding Claim 3,
Li further teaches
wherein at least one of the objective functions relates to a length of the robot path, a travel-time for the robot path, an energy consumption for the robot path, (“the at least one target value comprising at least one of a path length, a time duration, or an amount of energy consumption of the alternative path.” See at least [0007]; Examiner Interpretation: The examiner interprets the claim using “or.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Duan (Translated CN 110039540 A) is pertinent because it discusses robot path planning for multi-target optimization (path length, path safety and path smoothness) based on a Pareto dominance relation.
Duan (NPL: “Solving Multi-objective Path Planning for Service Robot by a Pareto-based Optimization Algorithm”) is pertinent because it discusses robot path planning for multi-target optimization (path length, path safety and path smoothness) based on a Pareto dominance relation.
Wilde (NPL: “Scalarizing Multi-Objective Robot Planning Problems using Weighted Maximization”) is pertinent because it discusses a cost function and algorithm that are able to find a wider range of trade-offs between objectives (i.e., Pareto-optimal solutions) for various planning problems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karston G Evans whose telephone number is (571)272-8480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571)270-3976. 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.
/KARSTON G. EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights