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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 2 and 9 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 2 and 9 recite “a curve” in more than one instance. It is unclear if these instances are the same as or distinct from the instance provided in the independent claim(s). For purposes of examination these instances will be interpreted as being the same.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed towards a computer program. The processor of a computer is not explicitly claimed as being a part of the invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Regarding claims 1 (and 8), the claim recites, in part, “providing the geometric path…defining…zone …optimizing the size… cost function…”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The additional element of a “computer” is just a generic computing device. Invocation of generic computing devices to perform or aid the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application because the claim does not include limitations that purport the improvement to the function of a computer or another technology, apply the abstract idea by way of a particular machine, or effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article (MPEP 2106.05). Rather, the abstract ideas are instead merely generally linked to a particular technical field (MPEP 2106.04(3)).
Claims 2-7 (and 9-14) recite, in part, “generates a curve… optimizing…iterative…cost function…predefined condition…optimizing… using a machine learning model”. The limitations of determining and generating, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind, which have been identified as being abstract ideas (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The use of algorithms and mathematical functions is considered a mathematical concept (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)&(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20110307096A1 (“Sladek”).
As per claims 1 and 8, Sladek teaches the limitations of the method and program:
A method for optimizing a geometric path for a robot device around an obstacle, comprising: providing the geometric path for the robot device, wherein the geometric path comprises at least one target position point for the robot device that is defined as an intersection of a first segment and a second segment forming the geometric path; defining at least a first blending zone around the at least one target position point, wherein the at least first blending zone is defined as a curve of the geometric path that blends the first segment into the second segment, and wherein a size of the curve is defined by a start position of a start point on the first segment of the geometric path and a curve end position of an end point of the second segment of the geometric path; and optimizing the size of the at least first blending zone by shifting the start point along the first segment and the end point along the second segment to find an optimal blending zone of the at least first blending zone that corresponds to a best cost function according to a defined criterion between the curve start point of the first segment and the curve end point of the second segment on the geometric path, wherein the optimal blending zone of the at least first blending zone satisfies at least one predefined condition. (Sladek at least the abstract, FIGs 3-5, FIGs 1a-1b, FIGs 7-8, [0043-0045], [0020-0021], [0033], [0053])
Claims 2 and 9:
the at least first blending zone is a non-linear function that generates a curve in a joint space or in a Cartesian space. (Sladek at least FIGs 6-8, [0048])
Claims 3 and 10:
optimizing is performed in an iterative manner. (Sladek at least [0012], [0041])
Claims 4 and 11:
the best cost function according to the defined criterion is a shortest path between the curve start point and the end point. (Sladek at least FIGs 7-8)
Claims 5 and 12:
the at least predefined condition is at least one of a collision-free path around the obstacle keeping a minimum distance of the robot device to the obstacle, a collision-free movement of the robot device with itself, a minimized distance of the curve to the obstacle, a minimized length of the geometric path, a defined cycle-time or a predefined energy consumption of the robot device. (Sladek at least [0031])
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.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sladek in view of US20220284348 (“Levy”).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Sladek teaches the invention as described above. Sladek does not disclose:
optimizing is performed by a discrete search or a continuous search manner.
Levy teaches the aforementioned limitation (Levy at least [0155]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sladek with the aforementioned limitations taught by Levy with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to define the geodesic distance of a path connecting x and y on a vehicular computing device or other device that is mobile in nature (Levy [0051], [0185]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Sladek teaches the invention as described above. Sladek does not disclose:
optimizing is performed by using a machine learning model.
Levy teaches the aforementioned limitation (Levy at least [0321]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Sladek with the aforementioned limitations taught by Levy with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation to combine these reference is the same as above in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20210260761A1 (“Norrlof”) teaches aspects of the invention as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights