Ex Parte Feniello et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

14280125 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

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