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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
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 16-30 are directed to a state monitoring device which is considered to be a machine. Claim 31 is directed to a state monitoring method which is considered to be a process. Claim 32 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a state monitoring program configured to monitor a state of an industrial robot capable of playing back a predetermined operation, which is considered to be a composition of matter. Therefore, each of claims 16-32 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 16-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 16 is directed to a state monitoring device comprising “the processor is configured with a program to perform to perform operations comprising: acquiring, from one or more sensors provided on the industrial robot, time-series data of state signals fora period of time from the timing of an acquisition start signal indicating a start of acquisition of a state signal reflecting a state of the industrial robot to the timing of an acquisition end signal indicating an end of acquisition of the state signal;
storing, in the storage time-series data acquired by the time-series data acquirer in association with timing information indicating when the time-series data was acquired and playback identification information identifying a playback operation of the industrial robot when the time-series was acquired and playback identification information identifying a playback operation of the robot when the time-series data was acquired;
calculating a dissimilarity between:
reference data based on the time-series data that is acquired in at least one playback operation and stored in the storage with the timing information and the playback identification information; and
comparison data based on the time-series data stored in the storage in association with:
the timing information indicating that the time-series data pertaining to the comparison data is acquired in the playback operation performed after the acquisition of the time-series data pertaining to the reference data; and
the playback identification information indicating that the time-series data pertaining to the comparison data is acquired in the same playback operation as when the time-series data pertaining to the reference data is acquired;
using the calculated dissimilarity as an evaluation quantity for evaluating the state of the industrial robot,
generating trend line data for presentation on the display, the trend line data representing a trend in which the dissimilarity calculated by the dissimilarity calculator changes over time, and
calculating a residual life of components of the industrial robot to enable control of maintenance of the industrial robot based on the trend line” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention, in at least paragraphs [0027], [0030], [0051]-[0096] of the instant application, teach the acquiring, calculating dissimilarity, and evaluations to be mathematical processes and give no indication that it is not performed on a general purpose computer. In addition, the acquiring could be carried out as purely mental processes or are equivalent to human work. Thus, these limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mathematical concept” group and the “mental process” group of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A Prong 2, claim 16 further recites the additional elements “an industrial robot”, “one or more sensors provided on the industrial robot”, “a processor; a storage; and a display”, and the structure of “a time-series data acquirer”, “a dissimilarity calculator”, and “a robot state evaluator”. The additional elements of the industrial robot, processor, the storage, the display, and the structure of the time-series data acquirer, dissimilarity calculator, and robot state evaluator are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the industrial robot and the one or more sensors provided on the industrial robot are not considered to be a positively recited part of the claimed system. The additional element of the one or more sensors provided on the industrial robot are considered to represent mere data gathering that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. The one or more sensors limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor, storage, display, time-series acquirer, dissimilarity calculator, and robot state evaluator are recited at such a high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim as a whole is not considered to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to Step 2B, the additional elements of “an industrial robot”, “one or more sensors provided on the industrial robot”, “a processor; a storage; and a display”, and the structure of “a time-series data acquirer”, “a dissimilarity calculator”, and “a robot state evaluator” do not provide an inventive concept. The additional elements of the industrial robot, one or more sensors, time-series data acquirer, storage, dissimilarity calculator, and a robot state evaluator are recited at a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. Note that the industrial robot and the one or more sensors provided on the industrial robot are not considered to be a positively recited part of the claimed system. The additional element of the one or more sensors provided on the industrial robot is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The one or more sensors limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. The processor, storage, display, time-series data acquirer, dissimilarity calculator, and robot state evaluator are recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. The displaying represents extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim and post solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). These limitations therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, these limitations do not amount to significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements represent merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 16 is not eligible. Claims 31 and 32 are rejected analogously.
Claims 17-18, 20, 22, 24, and 26-30 merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogously to claim 16 above.
Claims 19, 21, 23, and 25, recite the further additional element of “displaying the trend line, and displaying, simultaneously with the trend line, an alarm when the evaluation quantity different from the dissimilarity meets a predetermined condition.” The additional element of the display is recited at such a high level of generality that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions in a particular field of use. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer system. The displaying represents extrasolution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim and post solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the argument that the claims apply any computation within an industrial monitoring/prognostics workflow that culminates in maintenance control of an industrial robot on pages 14, 18, and 20, the claimed invention’s additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation to apply the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, no maintenance or control is required to happen in the claimed invention. The intended use of the calculated residual life is to enable the control of maintenance of the industrial robot. Therefore, the additional elements are not considered to render the claim significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas and is not considered to integrate them into a practical application as detailed above.
With respect to the argument that the claims are not solely directed to presentation but instead require residual-life calculation to enable maintenance control, which is a substantive technological application beyond post-solution reporting on pages 14 and 18, it is noted that the calculations are considered to be part of the above identified abstract ideas and only the additional elements can render the claims significantly more than the abstract ideas or integrate them into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05I. Therefore, the additional elements are not considered to render the claim significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas and is not considered to integrate them into a practical application as detailed above.
With respect to the argument that the Office Action failed to considered the recited ordered combination of sensor acquisition, playback-indexed storage, constrained dissimilarity computation, trending, and maintenance-control enablement contrary to the standards of MPEP 2106.05 and in Berkheimer/Aatrix on pages 14 and 19-20, the previous Office Action and the above rejections lay out the elements of the claims that are considered to be recitations of abstract ideas and those that are considered to be additional elements, in accordance with the guidance provided by MPEP 2106.05. The additional elements are considered both individually and in combination and analysis is presented above. As currently recited and disclosed, the processor, storage, and display are a known computer (paragraph [0045] of the instant PGPub) which is claimed and disclosed at such a high level of generality that it is considered to be a general purpose computer. The performance of programing within the capability of a general purpose computer is not considered to render the computer components into a special purpose machine. Therefore, the additional elements are not considered to render the claim significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas and is not considered to integrate them into a practical application as detailed above.
With respect to the argument on page 17 that the claims include one or more sensors for the gathering of the data, it is noted first that the one or more sensors is not positively recited as part of the state monitoring device as claimed. Further, the additional element of the one or more sensors provided on the industrial robot is considered to represent mere data gathering (collecting data) that is necessary for use of the recited judicial exception (the data is used in the using limitations’ mathematical concept) and is recited at a high level of generality. The one or more sensors limitation in the claim is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, the additional elements are not considered to render the claim significantly more than the above indicated abstract ideas and is not considered to integrate them into a practical application as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER E S BAHLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-3:30 pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571) 272-2149. 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.
/JENNIFER BAHLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights