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 . Pursuant to communications filed on 28 March 2022, this is a First Action Non-Final Rejection on the Merits. Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 March 2022, 31 January 2023 and 08 February 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a deformation information obtainment unit” and “a deterioration determination unit” as in claims 1, 3-6 and 8-16; and “a lifetime prediction unit” as in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, at least as noted in Applicant’s disclosure, paragraph [0095] wherein, “Control blocks (in particular, the information obtainment unit 113, the deterioration determination unit 115, the lifetime prediction unit 117, and the notification control unit 118) included in the deterioration determination apparatus 11 may be implemented by a logic circuit (hardware) formed in an integrated circuit (IC chip) or the like, or may also be implemented by software.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-16 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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, a deterioration determination apparatus, comprising a processor configured with a program to perform operations comprising:
operation as a deformation information obtainment unit configured to obtain information on deformation of a suction portion that is configured to hold an object by suction with negative pressure and elastically deforms by the negative pressure; and
operation as a deterioration determination unit configured to determine whether or not the suction portion has deteriorated, depending on the deformation of the suction portion occurring when the suction portion holds the object by suction.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim(s) recite(s) a deterioration determination apparatus (i.e. a system), therefore the claim(s) fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “obtain information on deformation of a suction portion that is configured to hold an object by suction with negative pressure and elastically deforms by the negative pressure”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human obtains (i.e. receives, acquires, etc.) information from one or more sensors (i.e. proximity sensor, pressure sensor and/or flow rate sensor). Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the one or more sensors and/or suction portion in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determine whether or not the suction portion has deteriorated, depending on the deformation of the suction portion occurring when the suction portion holds the object by suction”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human evaluates a deterioration of the suction portion based on the previously obtained information and further through mental observation to compare the current information against some kind of baseline information to determine if the integrity of the suction by the suction portion is performing as expected and/or if the suction by the suction portion is not as sufficient as in previous operations.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No.
Claim 1, is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
Regarding the claimed limitation(s)/element(s) of “a deformation information obtainment unit” and “a deterioration determination unit”, the Examiner submits that these limitations are simply computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality to which the abstract ideas are applied. These generic computing elements merely automate the abstract idea(s) presented above, without adding significantly more to distinguish themselves, such as by having unique structural components that incorporate features that cannot be done in the human mind. Regarding the claimed “deformation information obtainment unit” and “deterioration determination unit”, as it is stated in the claim and the specification, are generic computing element(s) that, as stated in paragraph [0095] “Control blocks (in particular, the information obtainment unit 113, the deterioration determination unit 115, the lifetime prediction unit 117, and the notification control unit 118) included in the deterioration determination apparatus 11 may be implemented by a logic circuit (hardware) formed in an integrated circuit (IC chip) or the like, or may also be implemented by software.” Thus for the additional elements of claim 1 analyzed individually, and/or taken as a whole, there is insufficient reasoning as to why the additional elements turn the abstract ideas into practical applications, since the additional elements merely recite automating the abstract ideas. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B, evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 1, is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
With regards to Step 2B of the 101 analysis, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as described above in Step 2A, Prong Two. Specifically, the “deformation information obtainment unit” and the “deterioration determination unit”, as defined in the specification, only recite applying generic computing elements to execute functions of the claim, and therefore do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Generally, applying an exception using generic computing element(s) or receiving and interpreting data cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, since independent claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 8-16, these claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite an abstract idea. Each of the further limitations expound upon the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements that are not well understood, routine or conventional. Additionally, regarding claim 2 and the claimed element of “a lifetime prediction unit” is simply a generic computing element that merely automates the abstract idea(s) presented above, and as further detailed in claim 1 above with respect to at least Step 2A, Prong Two, and further would therefore does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2B. Therefore, claims 2-6 and 8-16 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, a deterioration determination method, comprising:
obtaining information on deformation of a suction portion that is configured to hold an object by suction with negative pressure and elastically deforms by the negative pressure; and
determining whether or not the suction portion has deteriorated, depending on the deformation of the suction portion occurring when the suction portion holds the object by suction.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim(s) recite(s) a deterioration determination method (i.e. a process), therefore the claim(s) fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of “obtaining information on deformation of a suction portion that is configured to hold an object by suction with negative pressure and elastically deforms by the negative pressure”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human obtains (i.e. receives, acquires, etc.) information from one or more sensors (i.e. proximity sensor, pressure sensor and/or flow rate sensor). Humans have the ability to obtain, recognize and interpret data from multiple sources including other humans and machines (the one or more sensors and/or suction portion in this instance), and therefore the Examiner submits that this action can be done within the human mind.
The claim additionally recites the limitation of “determining whether or not the suction portion has deteriorated, depending on the deformation of the suction portion occurring when the suction portion holds the object by suction”, in the context of this claim is an abstract idea, wherein a human evaluates a deterioration of the suction portion based on the previously obtained information and further through mental observation to compare the current information against some kind of baseline information to determine if the integrity of the suction by the suction portion is performing as expected and/or if the suction by the suction portion is not as sufficient as in previous operations.
Step 2A, Prong Two evaluation: Practical Application – No.
Claim 7, is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.
In the present case, there are no additional elements currently provided in the claim limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are no additional elements that would impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2B, evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 7, is evaluated as to whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are no additional elements currently provided in the claim limitation(s). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., since there are no additional elements currently provided in the claim limitation(s) the judicial exception cannot be integrated into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Thus, since independent claim 7 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claim 7 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
In conclusion, as explained above, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as ineligible subject matter related to an abstract idea, with insignificant additional elements to overcome the judiciary exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zevenbergen et al (US 9,205,558 B1, hereinafter Zevenbergen).
Regarding claim 1, Zevenbergen teaches a deterioration determination apparatus, comprising a processor configured with a program to perform operations comprising:
operation as a deformation information obtainment unit configured to obtain information on deformation of a suction portion that is configured to hold an object by suction with negative pressure and elastically deforms by the negative pressure (Figure 3; at least as in column 15, lines 35-54, specifically at least wherein “the sensors may measure the vacuum response level of individual suction cups (e.g., a vacuum response level between 0 and 30 inches of mercury). In other examples, the sensors may report sensor data in other ways as well or instead. For instance, the sensors may only report whether or not the vacuum pressure of a particular suction is above a threshold level (e.g., above 10 inches of mercury)”); and
operation as a deterioration determination unit configured to determine whether or not the suction portion has deteriorated, depending on the deformation of the suction portion occurring when the suction portion holds the object by suction (Figure 3; at least as in column 16, lines 27-51, specifically at least wherein “method 300 may further involve identifying at least one suction cup to deactivate from the one or more active suction cups, as shown by block 306. More specifically, a control system may use the sensor data received from the in-line sensors indicating vacuum pressures of individual suction cups to identify one or more suction cups to deactivate in an effort to improve performance of the suction gripper” and further wherein “the control system may deactivate suction cups with a vacuum response below a certain threshold level. For instance, the threshold level may be set to eight inches of mercury, and any suction cup with a sensor reading below eight inches of mercury may be deactivated. In additional examples, the threshold level may be varied depending on factors such as the size or type of object to be gripped, the number of active suction cups, and/or past performance of the gripper using different threshold levels”). Examiner notes wherein the claimed “deformation of the suction portion” may reasonably be construed as a “transformation/change of the suction portion” based on the presence/absence of negative pressure, and has been construed as such in light of the applied prior art of Zevenbergen above.
Regarding claim 2, Zevenbergen further teaches wherein the processor configured with the program to perform operations further comprising operation as a lifetime prediction unit configured to predict a lifetime of the suction portion, depending on a temporal change of the deformation of the suction portion occurring when the suction portion holds the object by suction (at least as in column 4, lines 39-50, column 16, lines 43-51 and column 19, lines 6-64, specifically at least wherein “the positioning of the gripper and/or suction cups for gripping different types of objects may be improved over time based on past performance of the gripper and/or the suction cups” and further wherein “a particular suction cup may be identified that consistently underperforms compared to other suction cups used by the suction gripper”).
Regarding claim 7, Zevenbergen teaches a deterioration determination method, comprising:
obtaining information on deformation of a suction portion that is configured to hold an object by suction with negative pressure and elastically deforms by the negative pressure (Figure 3; at least as in column 15, lines 35-54, specifically at least wherein “the sensors may measure the vacuum response level of individual suction cups (e.g., a vacuum response level between 0 and 30 inches of mercury). In other examples, the sensors may report sensor data in other ways as well or instead. For instance, the sensors may only report whether or not the vacuum pressure of a particular suction is above a threshold level (e.g., above 10 inches of mercury)”); and
determining whether or not the suction portion has deteriorated, depending on the deformation of the suction portion occurring when the suction portion holds the object by suction (Figure 3; at least as in column 16, lines 27-51, specifically at least wherein “method 300 may further involve identifying at least one suction cup to deactivate from the one or more active suction cups, as shown by block 306. More specifically, a control system may use the sensor data received from the in-line sensors indicating vacuum pressures of individual suction cups to identify one or more suction cups to deactivate in an effort to improve performance of the suction gripper” and further wherein “the control system may deactivate suction cups with a vacuum response below a certain threshold level. For instance, the threshold level may be set to eight inches of mercury, and any suction cup with a sensor reading below eight inches of mercury may be deactivated. In additional examples, the threshold level may be varied depending on factors such as the size or type of object to be gripped, the number of active suction cups, and/or past performance of the gripper using different threshold levels”). Examiner notes wherein the claimed “deformation of the suction portion” may reasonably be construed as a “transformation/change of the suction portion” based on the presence/absence of negative pressure, and has been construed as such in light of the applied prior art of Zevenbergen above.
Regarding claim 8, Zevenbergen teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a control program (Figures 1B & 3; at least as in column 13, lines 28-37, wherein “it is noted that the functionality described in connection with the flowcharts described herein can be implemented as special-function and/or configured general-function hardware modules, portions of program code executed by a processor for achieving specific logical functions, determinations, and/or steps described in connection with the flowchart shown in FIG. 3. Where used, program code can be stored on any type of computer-readable medium, for example, such as a storage device including a disk or hard drive”), which when executed, for causing a computer to perform operations of the deterioration determination apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control program when executed causes the computer to perform operations comprising operations as the deformation information obtainment unit and the deterioration determination unit (specifically as provided in claim 1 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 9-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner additionally notes wherein the above 35 USC § 101 rejections would also need to be overcome in order to place the application in condition for allowance, and further wherein pending any formal amendments submitted by Applicant, the claims would need to be reevaluated in view of an updated search and further consideration, in light of said amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 – Notice of References Cited form. Examiner additionally notes the following prior art references, in the same field of endeavor as the instant invention and also reads on some of the currently provided claim limitations above;
US 2019/0329409 A1, issued to Yamada et al, which is directed towards a robotic manipulator for holding one or more objects with a suction device provided at the end of said manipulator and a holding success/failure determination unit for determining the measure of degree of vacuum reached during suction.
US 10,335,947 B1, issued to Diankov et al, which is directed towards a robotic system for handling one or more objects with a gripper including a plurality of suction cups, which is further configured to determine the degree of grip/suction between a target object and the gripper.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN L SAMPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-5925. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571)270-5376. 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.
/JONATHAN L SAMPLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657