DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended.
This office action is in response to the amendment submitted on 30-Dec-2025.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 101
On pgs. 10-11 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks, Applicant argues the amended claims have overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees and finds Claim 2 of Example 47 from the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples relevant.
Moreover the applicant argues that the “analyze” limitation is not a mental process as it recites a specific technical process for cumulative learning received from actual operating logs.
The examiner holds that operating logs are received through mere data gathering means which are extra solution activities MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, using that data to analyze and evaluate which action provided a better improvement to the function of the robot, is a mental process. The claim is recited at such a high level of generality that there is nothing that precludes the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper from performing the analysis and evaluation mentally.
The applicant further argues that amended claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
The applicant is hereby reminded of 2106.05(f) of the MPEP:
Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 101 analysis that turns on "the draftsman’s art").
Additionally, the applicant claims the claimed process improves the function of robotic system.
Examiner disagrees that the improvement is to a technological improvement. A proper statement of the rule as given by Enfish: For that reason, the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. (see Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The Court’s analysis of the claim hinged on the “self-referential table” limitation being an improvement over the conventional technology and not invoking the computer as a tool.
In our instant application, the limitations are directed to gathering data, and mentally evaluating the various executions to rank and determine which is an improvement. This evaluation can be performed mentally by a human. The claimed improvement is an improvement on the mental process, but invokes a computer/robot as a tool to perform the mental process. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a) paragraph 6).
MPEP 2106.05(a) further states: To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Response to Arguments – 35 USC 102
On pgs. 11-13 of the Applicant/Arguments Remarks, Applicant argues the amended claims overcome the rejection under 35 USC 102. The applicant argues that claim 1’s execution plan reports are received from multiple robots, including metrics from corresponding operations analyzed to detect improvements. Detected improvements are propagated by selectively replacing specific actions related to the improvements.
The examiner points out to section [0091] which indicates all action by each working robot is logged in the operation log. “This operation log 1171 is recorded for each working robot”. Additionally, [0063] indicates that the operation log, which includes data recorded from a multiplicity of robots is further ‘ranked’ to determine improvements which are selectively substituted in the working plan. Please see [0063-0069] and figures 17-18.
The applicant further argues that Gantt charts 223-224 reflect environmental changes, not execution plan reports generated from execution by multiple robots containing per operation performance metrics.
The examiner points again to [0063-0069] which illustrate that the execution plan logs (reports) generated from a plurality of robot executions are filtered and used to selectively decide on updates to the work plan. [0063] explicitly discloses performance metrics, “filters past performance data (work environment, equipment, mockup or simulator video, and operation log)”
The applicant’s arguments have been considered fully, however are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is: means for receiving, by processing circuitry of a controller, a first execution plan report based on execution of a first execution plan by a first robot, the first execution plan report including a first metric for a first operation of the first execution plan, in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Statutory class – device.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon?
Yes
“3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).” MPEP § 2106.04(a).
The claims are directed to an abstract idea of data processing and analysis. The claim recites:
analyze the first metric and the second metric to determine that the second operation is an improvement to the first operation;
The analyze limitation is a mental process of evaluation, judgement and mathematical calculations. By way of example, one can mentally evaluate the time it takes to complete a specific task, compare it across multiple versions of the action plan and judge which plan was more efficient.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The additional elements are:
a memory including instructions; and
processing circuitry that, when in operation, is configured by the instructions to:
receive, with processing circuitry of a controller, a first execution plan report based on execution of a first execution plan by a first robot, the first execution plan report including a first metric for a first operation of the first execution plan;
receive a second execution plan report based on execution of a second execution plan by a second robot, the second execution plan report including a second metric for a second operation of the second execution plan, the second operation corresponding to the first operation;
transmit a modified first execution plan to the first robot, the modified first execution plan selectively replacing the first operation with the second operation derived from execution by the second robot, while maintaining remaining operations of the first execution plan unchanged
The hardware memory and circuitry is a generic computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The receiving is mere data collection. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The transmitting is mere data output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception?
No, as discussed with respect to Step 2A, the additional limitation are mere data gathering and instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer and a general purpose computer. They do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore the claim does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Further, in regards to step 2B and as cited above in step 2A, MPEP 2106.05(g) “Obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir.2011)” is merely data gathering. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. This claim is ineligible.
Claim 2 recites the first execution plan is a test plan, the test plan changing the first operation from an original of the first execution plan, and the comparison of the first metric and the second metric is indicative that the test plan is not an improvement over the second execution plan, which is a mental process under Step 2A Prong One. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3 recites the controller invokes a cluster of edge nodes to analyze the test plan and the second execution plan to determine that the test plan is not an improvement over the second execution plan, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4 recites the second robot is simulated, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites the first execution plan report includes a grouping of parameters of operation, the grouping of parameters defines boundaries of the operations of the first robot, which is further specification to mere data collection under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6 recites the instructions configure the processing circuitry to: generate a simulation environment based on the grouping of parameters, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 7 recites the instructions configure the processing circuitry to: execute the simulation, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The remaining limitations are similar to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 recites the first execution plan report includes a deviation, the deviation including a fault or variation from a predicted performance of the first robot during execution of the first execution plan, which is further specification to mere data collection under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 recites the instructions configure the processing circuitry to: execute a simulation based on the deviation of the first execution plan report, which is mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer under Step 2A Prong Two and 2B. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The remaining limitations are similar to claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Therefore, the claim is considered ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 10–18 are medium claims that recite limitations similar to claims 1-9 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 19-25 are system claims that recite limitations similar to claims 1-7 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by KATSUNORI et al. (WO2022130652A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Katsunori teaches a device for cumulative learning robot execution plan generation, the device comprising: a memory including instructions; and processing circuitry that, when in operation, is configured by the instructions to (Fig 9 shows the CPU, HDD, RAM and ROM running the system instructions).
receive, with processing circuitry of a controller, a first execution plan report based on execution of a first execution plan by a first robot, the first execution plan report including a first metric for a first operation of the first execution plan 652A1 ([0058] "Simulator 100 acquires the operation log of working robot 22 during work from robot operation monitoring device 25 and stores it in operation recording unit 111 (step S271)").
receive a second execution plan report based on execution of a second execution plan by a second robot, the second execution plan report including a second metric for a second operation of the second execution plan, the second operation corresponding to the first operation ([0047] “The Gantt chart 223 shown in FIG. 12B is data of the working drawing/manual database 104 that is planned in advance in accordance with the operation screen 221 (planning environment). The Gantt chart 224 shown in FIG. 12C is data obtained by correcting the Gantt chart 223 in accordance with the operation screen 222 (execution environment)” Each Gantt chart is a time (metric) report for each of the two robots from Fig 12A conducting the same function).
PNG
media_image1.png
279
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
analyze the first metric and the second metric to determine that the second operation is an improvement to the first operation ([0063] "In step S211C, the simulator 100 ranks the similar action logs of the past results clustered/filtered in step S211B and displays the top action logs").
transmit a modified first execution plan to the first robot, the modified first execution plan selectively replacing the first operation with the second operation ([0057] "The simulator 100 updates the work plan data (plan drawings and procedures) based on the simulation executed in step S211 in response to the plan change (step S240), and stores the results in the working drawing and procedures database 104" and [0064] "In step S211D, the simulator 100 selects an operation log to be executed from the operation logs displayed in step S211C, and executes the selected operation log in the simulator. The process of step S211D may include the following process. - A process for selecting operation logs by a person in charge, etc. - Selection process based on the success rate calculation results of operation logs using deep neural networks or recurrent neural networks").
derived from execution by the second robot, while maintaining remaining operations of the first execution plan unchanged ([0062-0063] “In step S211B, the simulator 100 clusters or filters past performance data (work environment, equipment, mockup or simulator video, and operation log) linked to the various components extracted (selected) in step S211A. The process of step S211B may include the following process. - Clustering/filtering processing using machine learning. The symbol "A/B" indicates at least one of A or B. -Manual clustering/filtering processing by linking past performance. In step S211C, the simulator 100 ranks the similar action logs of the past results clustered/filtered in step S211B and displays the top action logs. The ranking in step S211C may include the following rankings. -Rankings based on machine learning, or rankings based on the success rate calculation results of operation logs using deep neural networks or recurrent neural networks. - Ranking items (man-hours, number of additional devices, number of additional workers, cost, etc.) are weighted with coefficients
according to the situation, and similar actions are ranked.” Additionally, [0066-0069] and Fig. 18 describe selective choosing of certain actions and updating the plan and Gant chart (which includes previous actions by the first robot accordingly)
Regarding Claim 2, Katsunori teaches the first execution plan is a test plan, the test plan changing the first operation from an original of the first execution plan, and the comparison of the first metric and the second metric is indicative that the test plan is not an improvement over the second execution plan ([0066-0067] "The simulator 100 specifies a combination of the target area, scenario, and robot of the mockup execution environment to be measured in step S401 (step S501). This designation may be one way, or a plurality of different combinations may be tried in order as a loop process. As the environment comparison process in step S402, the simulator 100 extracts the difference between the mockup planning environment and the mockup execution environment of the target area designated in step S501 (step S502). As the judgment process of step S410, the simulator 100 judges whether the difference in the volume of the objects (work object 21, work robot 22, building structures, etc.) that are the difference between the two environments compared in step S502 exceeds a predetermined threshold value (ΔV) (step S503). If the answer to step S503 is Yes, the simulator 100 proceeds to step S511, and if the answer is No, the simulator 100 proceeds to step S521").
Regarding Claim 3, Katsunori teaches the controller invokes a cluster of edge nodes to analyze the test plan and the second execution plan to determine that the test plan is not an improvement over the second execution plan (Fig 8 shows the cluster of nodes analyzing the plans. Fig 1, shows the interaction between the various remote vs. edge nodes.)
PNG
media_image2.png
913
1200
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
873
605
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Katsunori teaches the second robot is simulated ([0008] "The present invention is characterized by having a simulator that creates work plan data for specifying operation data of the work robot by a first simulation process based on a local planning environment").
Regarding Claim 5, Katsunori teaches the first execution plan report includes a grouping of parameters of operation, the grouping of parameters defines boundaries of the operations of the first robot ([0004] "The working environment, which indicates the state of a construction site, such as the size of the debris at the demolition site and the location of the heavy machinery used to remove the debris, changes from moment to moment." The working environment represents the grouping of parameters).
Regarding Claim 6, Katsunori teaches the instructions configure the processing circuitry to:
generate a simulation environment based on the grouping of parameters ([0018] "The simulator 100 has databases for storing management data, including an environment database 101 for storing a virtual environment model in the simulation, a robot model database 102 for storing a virtual robot model in the simulation, a work progress database 103 (explained below), a construction drawing/instruction manual database 104 (details in Figures 4A and 4B, and Figures 5A to 5C), and a mockup test result database 105," and [0033] "Collision determination unit 114 determines spatial collisions on simulator 100 between work robot 22 and other objects (not only work target 21 but also pillars and walls of buildings) in the work environment").
Regarding Claim 7, Katsunori teaches the instructions configure the processing circuitry to:
execute the simulation, generate a first test execution plan and a second test execution plan, the first and second test execution plans each include one or more operations performed by a robot in the simulation ([0064] "In step S211D, the simulator 100 selects an operation log to be executed from the operation logs displayed in step S211C, and executes the selected operation log in the simulator" The simulator generates multiple test execution plans based on the operation log. Fig 17 showcases the iterative cycle of test execution plan until a satisfactory result is achieved).
PNG
media_image4.png
879
737
media_image4.png
Greyscale
analyze results from the first and second test execution plans running in simulation to determine that the first test execution is an improvement to the second test execution plan ([0063] "In step S211C, the simulator 100 ranks the similar action logs of the past results clustered/filtered in step S211B and displays the top action logs").
generate a new execution plan, the new execution plan including the first test execution plan ([0067] "As the judgment process of step S410, the simulator 100 judges whether the difference in the volume of the objects (work object 21, work robot 22, building structures, etc.) that are the difference between the two environments compared in step S502 exceeds a predetermined threshold value (ΔV) (step S503). If the answer to step S503 is Yes, the simulator 100 proceeds to step S511, and if the answer is No, the simulator 100 proceeds to step S521. The following steps from step S511 onwards are specific examples of the update process of the plan drawing and the manual (step S440)" S511 sets up a new environment and generates a new execution plan accordingly as show in fig 18).
PNG
media_image5.png
905
690
media_image5.png
Greyscale
transmit the new execution plan to the first robot ([0057] "The simulator 100 updates the work plan data … and stores the results in the working drawing and procedures database 104" The procedures database provides the latest action plan for the robot control device).
Regarding Claim 8, Katsunori teaches the first execution plan report includes a deviation, the deviation including a fault or variation from a predicted performance of the first robot during execution of the first execution plan ([0082] "The multi-robot cooperative operation unit 116 may cause the multiple work robots 22 to operate cooperatively via the multi-robot cooperative control device 14 . If an abnormality occurs in the operation of one of the multiple work robots 22, such as the robot tipping over (reference symbol 262X), a deviation in the robot's operation from the normal operation (reference symbol 261X) may occur. Therefore, when the simulator 100 detects a difference process in the robot operation (Yes in step S280), it treats the event as an environmental change and executes the re-planning process from step S220 onwards").
Regarding Claim 9, Katsunori teaches the instructions configure the processing circuitry to:
execute a simulation based on the deviation of the first execution plan report ([0043] "That is, when a difference occurs from the local execution environment, which is the work environment during the execution stage, as a result of measuring the local execution environment, the work plan data is updated by a second simulation process based on the local execution environment" The difference is a deviation 'incident').
generate multiple test execution plans, each of the test execution plans including a change to the first operation in the first execution plan ([0078] "If the material is not found (step S811, No), the simulator 100 repeatedly executes the mock-up test again (step S821) until data necessary to estimate a new material is collected").
analyze metrics from the test execution plans running in the simulation to determine an updated test execution plan is an improvement over the other test execution plans ([0079] "the simulator 100 divides the removal location of the actual interfering object into a plurality of regions as shown in FIG. 21A (step S401B)…. The simulator 100 executes a test for each region in step S401B, assuming a plurality of materials and shapes of the object (step S461). The simulator 100 (work man-hour calculation unit 115) organizes the test results of step S461, stores them in each database shown in Figures 20A to 20C (step S462), and combines the stored data (material, shape, processing method) to evaluate the construction time”).
transmit the updated test execution plan to the first robot ([0057] "The simulator 100 updates the work plan data … and stores the results in the working drawing and procedures database 104." The procedures database provides the latest action plan for the robot control device).
Claims 10–18 are medium claims that recite limitations similar to claims 1-9 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 19-25 are system claims that recite limitations similar to claims 1-7 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(US20210107144A1): Discloses robot learning in the context of ML and RL.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR DARWISH whose telephone number is (571)272-4779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Thurs.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached on 571-272-3652. 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.
/A.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187