Ex Parte Feniello et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201814280125 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/280,125 05/16/2014 69316 7590 05/02/2018 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ashley Nathan Feniello UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 341367.01 6112 EXAMINER HOLWERDA, STEPHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/02/2018 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): usdocket@microsoft.com chriochs@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ASHLEY NATHAN FENIELLO, STAN BIRCHFIELD, and HAO DANG Appeal2017-008131 Application 14/280,125 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and PAUL J. KORNICZKY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC., as the real party in interest. Appeal2017-008131 Application 14/280,125 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter pertains to "tasks to be performed by a robot." Spec. ,r 1. System claims 1, 11, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below. 1. In a computer system comprising a user interface and a display device, a computer-implemented process for employing a robotics tasks demonstration interface to synthesize a robotic control program, comprising: using a computer to perform the following process actions: receiving object data which represents a collection of objects, the object data including data corresponding to the orientation, location and perceptual properties of the collection of objects in a workspace associated with a robot; displaying a virtual rendering of the workspace in which the collection of objects are depicted so as to correspond to the orientation, location and perceptual properties included in the object data, and in which each object displayed is capable of being repositioned so as to be depicted in a different orientation, or location, or both; receiving user instructions to reposition one or more of the depicted objects, said object repositioning instructions being indicative of tasks that it is desired for the robot to perform on an object or objects in the actual workspace; and synthesizing a robotic control program for instructing the robot to perform the tasks indicated in the object repositioning instructions. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Oumi et al. Reyier et al. Ota US 2007/0213874 Al US 2008/0253612 Al US 2012/0072023 Al THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Sept. 13, 2007 Oct. 16, 2008 Mar. 22, 2012 Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oumi and Reyier. 2 Appeal2017-008131 Application 14/280,125 Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oumi, Reyier, and Ota. ANALYSIS Appellants present similar arguments for independent claims 1, 11, and 17. App. Br. 10-32. Further, Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, or 18-20. App. Br. 10. Accordingly, we select claim 1 for review, with claims 2-20 standing or falling therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). With respect to claim 1, the Examiner primarily relies on the teachings of Oumi for disclosing "a workspace (3 8) associated with a robot (18)" and also the receipt of object data. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner acknowledges that Oumi "does not expressly disclose" certain limitations regarding the received object data and relies on Reyier for such teachings. Final Act. 4. Appellants' address Oumi' s workspace teachings contending, "Oumi Teaches Away From the Claimed Workspace Feature." App. Br. 11; see also id. at 12-13; Reply Br. 3-7. This is because Oumi relies on a simulated workspace instead of "the actual workspace of the robot, as is claimed by the Appellants." App. Br. 11-12. Stated another way, Oumi's modeling "in a virtual working environment is diametrically opposed to the claimed workspace feature." App. Br. 12. The Examiner states, "[r]egarding the claimed workspace feature, Appellant does not assert, and there is no proper basis for applying or importing from the Specification, any special definition for any definition for any term in the claim language at issue." Ans. 5. Consistent with the 3 Appeal2017-008131 Application 14/280,125 Examiner's findings, Appellants' Specification states that the recited workspace can be either real or virtual. See Spec. ,r 17. Paragraph 1 7 of Appellants' Specification describes three different embodiments as follows, (a) "[i]n one implementation" a camera is used "to detect actual objects in the workspace of the robot;" (b) "[i]n another implementation," the objects can be virtual but which are derived "from previously-captured actual images of a robot's workspace;" and, ( c) "[ i ]n yet another implementation" a "synthesized workspace depicts [] virtual objects" such that the synthesized objects were "specifically generated for the synthesized workspace." Ans. 5. Thus, as understood, (a) and (b) above are directed to an actual workspace while ( c) above is directed to a virtual workspace. Hence, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants' Specification does not distinguish between real and virtual workspaces and as such, Appellants' Specification does not provide "any special definition ... for any term in the claim language at issue" that might restrict this term to one version or the other. 2 Ans. 5. Further, Oumi describes using both real ("conventional") and virtual working environments. Ans. 9 (referencing Oumi ,r,r 4, 43). Consequently, Appellants' attempt to restrict claim 1 to actual workspaces is inconsistent with Appellants' own specification and is also 2 Regarding different issues, in Appellants' Reply Brief, Appellants address the claim term "corresponding" asserting that this term "is defined as being 'directly related to something."' Reply Br. 5 (referencing https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corresponding"). However, the definition actually provided by this website does not define this term as "directly related" and, as such, Appellants' arguments based on this faulty definition are not persuasive of Examiner error. See Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants also address the source of the object data (Reply Br. 4, 6) but do not dispute that Paragraph 17 of Appellants' Specification is directed to both real and virtual workspaces. 4 Appeal2017-008131 Application 14/280,125 inconsistent with how one skilled in the art would understand the claim language upon reading Appellants' Specification. We, thus, agree with the Examiner's assessment that "Appellant[ s '] argument involves [an] improper[] narrow interpretation of the claim language at issue." Ans. 7. Accordingly, because Appellants' 'teaching away' argument is premised on an unfounded distinction between a real and a virtual workspace, and because such premise is faulty in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 as explained by the Examiner above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Additionally, the Examiner further states, "[i]t has been held that the prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed (see MPEP [§] 2145(X)(D))." Ans. 4; see also Final Act. 16, 17. On this point, the Examiner identifies where Oumi discloses that it is known to employ an actual robot to pick actual pieces in an actual workspace. Ans. 6, 9 (both referencing Oumi ,r 4). Oumi, however, identifies problems that may arise when using the actual operation of the robot in an actual workspace. See Oumi ,r 6. To solve such problems, Oumi teaches an "off-line mode" that is "capable of appropriately simulating a workpiece handling operation" that can "quickly calculate the cycle time" while also checking for interferences "to prepare an optimum operation program quickly at low cost." Oumi ,r 9; see also id. at ,r,r 34, 42. Appellants do not explain how Oumi's teaching of employing a virtual workspace as an alternative to an actual workspace is not simply a low cost alternative by which to check robot operation. In other words, 5 Appeal2017-008131 Application 14/280,125 Appellants do not explain how Omni's alternative teachings rise to the level of criticizing, discrediting, or otherwise discouraging the solution claimed. 3 Appellants next contend the "Claimed Workspace Feature is Not Inherent in Oumi." App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 7. However, the Examiner clearly states ( and we agree), "inherency is not an aspect of any rejection and inherency is not an aspect of any argument in any Response to Arguments." Ans. 12. Accordingly, Appellants' contentions on this point are mis-placed and are not persuasive of Examiner error since they address a rejection not made. Lastly, Appellants contend that combining Reyier's real-world representation with Oumi's virtual representation would render Oumi "Unsatisfactory for Its Intended Purpose." App. Br. 16; see also id. at 17; Reply Br. 8. Appellants contend "the random piling/placement of objects in Oumi's virtual working environment is clearly an intended function of Oumi's invention" and that this "advantage" "would be lost" if the references were combined. App. Br. 17-18; see also Reply Br. 9. We disagree with Appellant's assessment as to the intended function of Oumi' s invention. Although the aforesaid random piling/placement is described in Oumi as a means of accomplishing what Oumi desires (see Oumi ,r 43), the actual 3 We note Oumi' s teaching that "it is typically difficult to model the irregularly piled state so as to conform to the actual arrangement of the workpieces," and, thus, Oumi states that the simulated arrangement "may adopt a procedure" that relies on random numbers. Oumi ,r 43. However, Appellants do not explain why one skilled in the art would fail to apply conventional systems "in situations wherein the irregular[] pile of workpieces is not difficult to model," as stated by the Examiner. Ans. 6 ( citing Oumi ,r,r 4, 43). 6 Appeal2017-008131 Application 14/280,125 purpose of Omni is described in paragraphs 4--6, 9, 34, and 42 of Omni. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Omni disclose that it is known for robots to manipulate actual objects in real time, even those "randomly disposed or irregularly piled." Paragraph 6 of Oumi addresses problems that can occur during such real-time operations which may result in robot stoppage or unexpected interference with another object, all of "which may deteriorate working efficiency." Accordingly, Oumi's solution is to "provide a robot simulation device for simulating the operation of a robot" "off-line." Oumi ,r 9; see also id. at ,r 34. Hence, cycle time and interferences can be ascertained and, as a result, it is possible "to prepare the optimum robot operation program 46 quickly at low cost." Oumi ,r 42. In other words, we agree with the Examiner's assessment that "the 'intended purpose' of Oumi is providing a system for controlling a robot to pick workpieces." Ans. 23. Appellants do not explain how Oumi would be unable to ascertain cycle time, interferences, or low cost operation in the event the data was derived from the real world ( e.g., Reyier) versus being derived from a virtual world. See Reply Br. 9--10. Data is data, and Appellants do not explain how Oumi' s system would function differently with data derived from one source than from another, or, if receiving real-world data, would not function as intended. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Oumi's principle of operation would be destroyed by employing Reyier's real-world data. In other words, and as per the Examiner, "[ c ]onsistent with the 'intended purpose' of Oumi, applying the teachings of Reyier to the system of Oumi would result in a system for controlling a robot to pick workpieces." Ans. 23; see also id. at 24. 7 Appeal2017-008131 Application 14/280,125 Thus, based on the record presented, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation