DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action in response to U.S. application 19/318,900. All claims are pending.
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 .
Double Patenting
Claims 21, 24-27, and 29 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1-2 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent 12,427,659. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 24-27, and 29 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent 12,427,659 (herein referred to as ‘659). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. As shown in the table below claim 1 is rejected by ‘659’s claim 1.
Claim
This Application’s Claim
‘659 Claims
21
A method for generating actions for robots, the method comprising:
(a) receiving observation data comprising data descriptive of an environment;
1. A computer-implemented method for generating actions for robots, the method comprising: obtaining observation data, wherein the observation data comprises data descriptive of an environment prior to a first action of a robot;
21
(b) generating, by a first embedding model, a first feature embedding based, at least in
part, on the observation data;
1. determining the first action for the robot based at least in part on the observation data; processing the observation data descriptive of the environment prior to the first action of the robot with a first embedding model to generate a first feature embedding;
21
(c) generating, by a second embedding model, a second feature embedding based, at least
in part, on the observation data and a prior action of a robot;
1. processing the observation data descriptive of the environment prior to the first action of the robot with a second embedding model to generate a second feature embedding, wherein the second embedding model is conditioned upon the first action;
21
(d) determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the first feature embedding with
the second feature embedding, an action for the robot; and
1. and determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the first feature embedding with the second feature embedding, a second action for the robot.
21
(e) updating, for the second embedding model, the prior action of the robot with the
action for the robot.
1. wherein the second embedding model is conditioned upon the first action;
‘659’s claim 1 is the same as the present application’s claim 21 except that the present application specifies updating for the second embedding model, the prior action of the robot with the action for the robot. However, as ‘659’s claim 1 does cite that the second embedding model is conditioned upon the first action, it would be obvious that this would be done via an update of the action. Therefore, it is an obviousness non-statutory double patenting.
For the same reasons, the following table shows which claims from ‘659 correspond to this application’s 24-27 and 29.
24
wherein the observation data comprises image data.
4. wherein the observation data comprises image data.
25
wherein the observation data comprises Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) point cloud data.
5. wherein the observation data comprises Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) point cloud data.
26
determining an initial action for the robot based, at least in part, on the observation data.
1. determining the first action for the robot based at least in part on the observation data
27
(f) controlling the robot to perform the action.
2. controlling the robot to cause the robot to perform the first action and the second action.
29
wherein the method is performed iteratively and the action for the robot for each iteration is a different pose change.
6. wherein the first action comprises a change in a pose of the robot.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-40 allowed. Prior art of record, as discussed below, teaches using embedding models for robot actions, but does not explicitly teach generating a first feature embedding based on observation data to determine an action and then generating a second feature embedding based on the observation data and the action of the first feature embedding to determine a second action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: encoding motion codes for actions of a robotic manipulator (Sun, US 20220012901); (Devin, “Self-Supervised Goal-Conditioned Pick and Place”, IDS); implementing a control method of a pick and place robot using a computer (Schneider, US 20210379757, IDS); using a probability distribution in pre-selecting grasp actions (Berscheid, “Self-supervised Learning for Precise Pick-and-place without Object Model” 2020, IDS); using three-dimensional data in embedding feature mapping (Urtasan, US 20210012116, IDS); performing task embedding in mapping sensory data to control instructions for a robotic device (James, US 20210205988, IDS); mapping embedding space onto a probability distribution for selecting actions (Theocharous, US 20210089958, IDS); convolving estimated variable values to generate probability distributions (Mintz, US 20170084027, IDS); using embedded feature vectors for different features of an object (Nagarajan, US 20190196436).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303)297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
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.
/D.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
