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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/11/225 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 15-22 remain pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth previously. Claims 3-14 have been cancelled and claims 15-22 are new claims.
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 1-2 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. In particular, claim 1 includes the limitations of, “identifying unique IDs of a program and at least one of the motions included in the program using the log information wherein the program includes instructions for the motions, wherein the unique IDs of the program and the motions are stored in the memory;”, “generating an execution pattern based on the sensing data, wherein the execution pattern I stored in memory;”, “extracting a standard pattern that is identifiable by the same IDs of the program and motions from the memory, wherein the standard pattern is stored in the memory;”, “diagnosing a fault of the programmable robot by comparing the execution pattern with the standard pattern, which are stored in the memory;”, “grouping the second sensing data such that the grouped sensing data is identifiable by the unique IDs of the program and motions”, “calculating average values of the grouped sensing data;”, and “defining the average values as the standard pattern;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include a plurality of limitations of identifying, generating, extracting, diagnosing, grouping, and comparing of gathered data, which are all limitations which can be reasonably performed using pen and paper/the human mind and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the limitation of calculating average values includes steps that include mathematical formulas and thus fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the limitation of, “displaying, using a display, the fault”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, merely displays a result the determined fault which just merely applies the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 includes the additional limitation of, “receiving first sensing data corresponding to a plurality of motions of the programmable robot from the programmable robot through a communication unit, along with corresponding log information, wherein the first sensing data is stored in the memory;” and “collecting second sensing data corresponding to the plurality of motions of the programmable robot”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional limitations of, “a programmable robot”, “an electronic device”, and “a memory”, as generally recited merely represent generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering robot performance data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
New independent claim 15 recites, “comparing the first patterns and the second patterns with each other to detect differences corresponding to the first and second motions;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of comparing differences in data between two patterns, which is an act that can reasonably be performed in the human mind, and thus, falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 further recites, “designating a motion corresponding to a difference equal to or greater than a threshold as a fault motion.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just merely designates or displays the result of the comparison which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 15 additionally recites, “storing, each time the programmable robot repeats the first operation, first sensing data sensed by the plurality of sensors in each of the first motions;”, “storing first patterns corresponding to each of the first motions based on the first sensing data;”, “storing second sensing data sensed by the plurality of sensors in each of the second motions;”, and “storing second patterns corresponding to each of the second motions based on the second sensing data;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, the limitations of, “producing a programmable robot including a plurality of joints and a plurality of sensors, the plurality of joints and sensors being operable in response to an operation program;”, “inputting a first operation program into the programmable robot, and controlling the programmable robot to repeatedly perform a first operation composed of first motions according to the first operation program;”, and “inputting a second operation program into the programmable robot, and controlling the programmable robot to perform a second operation composed of second motions according to the second operation program;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, describe the system utilizes a robot and arbitrary steps performed to initiate data gathering which just generally apply the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or problem solving area (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering robot performance data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 15 and is thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above.
Dependent claims 2, 16-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. In particular, claims 2, 18-19, and 21-22, include additional limitations of, determining occurrence of the fault based on a difference between an execution pattern and standard pattern, assigning unique ID’s to operation data, and comparison of the two patterns, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, include limitations which can be reasonably performed using pen and paper/the human mind and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 16 and 17, include limitations describing that the first and second operation program are the same and wherein the first data patterns correspond to average values of sensed data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes limitations describing various details regarding the data, which just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering robot performance data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues, that the present application provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer/technical field, and that the invention solves a problem of detecting faults due to the complexity of data that is analyzed. Further, the applicant argues in light of the new memorandum issued on August 4, 2025, the claims should be reconsidered in light of the new guidance as the claims are directed to significantly more in light of the new guidance. The office respectfully disagrees.
To reiterate, the previous analysis will be included below to keep the arguments on the record, with additional arguments below regarding how the invention lacks the complexity to be considered significantly more as currently claimed.
As identified and discussed above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection section, first the limitations were all reviewed for any abstract limitations. The office found that the majority of the independent claim 1 fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas with one limitation falling within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
MPEP 2106.04(III) states: “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not "mental processes", is provided below with respect to point A.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.”
Applying this guidance for each limitation results in the following interpretations/conclusions:
“identifying unique IDs of a program and the motions using the log information wherein the program includes instructions for the motions;”; - the act of identifying unique IDs and motions given log information is something one can readily view and make mental determinations given the information.
“generating an execution pattern based on the sensing data;”, - one could reasonably use pen and paper to “generate” or create an execution pattern given data to review.
“extracting a standard pattern that is identifiable by the same IDs of the program and motions from the memory;” – one could reasonably use pen and paper to create a standard pattern using extracted values/IDs from provided data.
“diagnosing a fault of the programmable robot by comparing the execution pattern with the standard pattern.” – one could reasonably use their mind to compare two patterns to identify discrepancies and determine where a fault exists based upon the comparison of data.
“grouping the second sensing data such that the grouped sensing data is identifiable by the unique IDs of the program and motions”, --- one could reasonably use pen and paper to write down and group a second set of data.
Each of the above limitations include basic functions that are all reasonable to perform using the human mind or with pen and paper without much trouble as nothing in the claims suggest a task that is beyond the scope of a person’s mental ability. All limitations are simply reviewing/grouping/defining things related to gathered data. Review of the specification, in particular cited portions by the applicant (i.e. paragraphs [0004]-[0006]) do not provide substantial support so one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how these processes are beyond the capability of human other than making declaratory statements that the data patterns are “complex” without further explanation as to how the complexities are beyond the scope of human capability.
Currently, the only action we have is merely displaying the fault which unfortunately is deemed to be a solution which merely “applies” the judicial exception as described in MPEP 2106.05(f):
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
With regards to the applicant’s arguments that the analysis of data is very complex and beyond the scope of a human and, therefore, provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer/technical field, the office reproduces the applicant’s own drawing of Fig. 6 below.
[AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
474
789
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the arguments, the applicant argues the crux of this invention revolves around creating standard operation patterns that can then be used to compare to actual operation patterns to detect faults in the robot system. The operations include complex patterns that are difficult to ascertain and the present invention solves this problem by automatically comparing the standard patterns to actual patterns.
However, the office argues, based on the provided drawing above (emphasis added with respect to the fault as shown by motion A), that given the data patterns of Fig. 6, that one can reasonably see and deduce that the standard pattern and actual pattern do not match on the graph and thus there is a problem. It is obvious the traces do not match and that a problem exists and does not require a unique or specialized knowledge to see this and make this conclusion.
With respect to the new guidance provided in the memorandum issued in August of 2025, this was more directed towards 101 issues dealing with AI related claims, as all AI and training of AI include some sort of mathematical calculation or algorithm in order to perform its action. As such, every AI case would be considered abstract and thus guidance was set forth wherein, as long as applicant’s recite training AI/Machine learning in general terms without reciting specific algorithms which would insinuate mathematical calculations, then the applications are to be treated eligible and not directed towards an abstract idea. The present application does not deal with any AI or machine learning application and thus, the memorandum is not necessarily directed towards the issues in the present application.
With respect to not elaborating on why the claimed invention is directed towards, “merely applying” the use of the judicial exception, the office will point to Appendix 1 of the October 2019 Update regarding 101 analysis, and in particular, example 46 Livestock Management. Example 46 has a similar claim pattern of the present application presented below:
“1. A system for monitoring health and activity in dairy livestock animals comprising:
a memory;
a display; and
a processor coupled to the memory programmed with executable instructions, the instructions including a livestock interface for obtaining animal-specific information, wherein the animal-specific information comprises animal identification data and at least one of body position data, body temperature data, feeding behavior data, and movement pattern data; and a monitoring component for
(a) comparing the obtained animal-specific information with animal information from a herd database to verify an animal’s identity, and
(b) analyzing the obtained animal-specific information to identify whether the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern as compared to past behavior of the animal, and
(c) displaying the analysis results for the animal on the display.”
Similar to the present application, data is gathered (i.e. pattern data of the present application), data is then compared/analyzed (i.e. comparing the execution pattern to a standard pattern), and the result is displayed as is done in the present application. Regarding the “display” limitation being linked to merely applying the use of the judicial exception, here is what the official analysis recites from the example:
“Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements of the memory, the display, the processor, the livestock interface, and limitation (c). The memory, display and processor are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
An evaluation of whether the livestock interface is “insignificant extra-solution activity” is then performed. Note that because the Step 2A Prong Two analysis excludes consideration of whether a limitation is well-understood, routine, conventional activity (2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 55), this evaluation does not take into account whether or not the livestock interface is well-known. See October 2019 Update at Section III.D. When so evaluated, the livestock interface represents mere data gathering (obtaining the animal-specific information) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the obtained information is used in the abstract mental process of comparing and analyzing) and is recited at a high level of generality. The livestock interface is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitation (c), which is carried out by the processor and the display, is also an additional element, i.e., the monitoring component in the processor performs the necessary software tasks so that the result of the abstract mental process is displayed on the display. This limitation represents extra solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, for instance the step of printing a menu that was generated through an abstract process in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and the mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes that the farmer used to perform (e.g., the mental inspection and evaluation of the livestock animals’ behavior), using the computer components as a tool. While this type of automation improves the daily life of farmers (by minimizing or eliminating the need for mentally evaluating the behavior of livestock animals), there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).”
This explains in detail rationale regarding why the present applications display of results just merely applies the use of the judicial exception using generic components. To expand on new claims 15 and 20, the mere “designation” of a result, is merely a derivative of displaying, as nothing is done to utilize the abstract idea to show that significantly more than that abstract idea is performed.
Again, the best way to overcome this issue, if the specification supports it, is to provide a way to operate the robot in response to detection of the fault such as stopping or controlling the robot to prevent damage to the robot. This would show significantly more than the abstract idea of merely detecting defects in patterns as the system would be operated to prevent further issues.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ibarz Gabardos et al. (US PGPUB 20160096270): disclose a robot tracking and training method including using pattern templates in order to help identify and correct issues in robot navigation.
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 CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117