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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 10/02/2025.
Claims 19-44, 63-88 are pending and examined.
Claims 1-18 and 45-62 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Per 101 abstract idea rejection, applicant merely stated Applicant believes amended independent claim 19/63 is directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant did not present any argument on why the amended claims are directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or why the amended claims would overcome the 101 abstract idea rejection. Therefore, the previously issued 101 abstract idea rejection is maintained.
The previously issued Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant for further discussion on the 101 abstract idea rejection.
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 19-44, 63-88 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.
Statutory Category: Claim 19 recites a method comprising: selecting, from a plurality of workpiece processing stations associated with a control process, at least one control process observation target, associated with a workstation, and used in the control process, associated with processing a workpiece, as an actual control process observation target; conducting a control process experiment to generate at least one control process instruction to cause the workstation to produce the actual control process observation target, wherein generating the at least one control process instruction, by execution of at least one control process experimental step, comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: execute a parameter value variation with respect to at least one parametrized function representing a degree of freedom for control of a cyber-physical object associated with a workstation; submit the at least one parameter value variation to a control process test environment and to receive a dedicated parameter observation in response to the submitted at least one parameter value variation from the control process test environment; evaluate the dedicated parameter observation with respect to a progress of the control process experiment towards the actual control process observation target using an artificial potential objective function; generate at least one control process instruction for the cyber-physical object associated with the workstation from the parameter value variation upon a progress of the control process experiment; and control the control process experiment according to a predetermined control process experiment strategy.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 19 recites: selecting, from a plurality of workpiece processing stations associated with a control process, at least one control process observation target, associated with a workstation, and used in the control process, associated with processing a workpiece, as an actual control process observation target (a mental step of selecting a control process observation target); execute a parameter value variation with respect to at least one parametrized function representing a degree of freedom for control of a cyber-physical object associated with a workstation; (a mental step of creating parameter values); evaluate the dedicated parameter observation with respect to a progress of the control process experiment towards the actual control process observation target using an artificial potential objective function (a mental step of evaluation). These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind or manually. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 19 recites additional elements such as “submit the at least one parameter value variation to a control process test environment and to receive a dedicated parameter observation in response to the submitted at least one parameter value variation from the control process test environment”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to inputting parameters to a simulation and receiving simulation results, which is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Jobanputra et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0073385; paragraphs [0153]-[0155][0198]; providing a simulation environment to simulate a vehicle/object’s movement virtually; a developer may select from predefined GUI features to enable user control over various parameters associated with a skill such as movement speed, distance to travel; a developer can test by “flying” simulated vehicles in the simulated environment, and observing the automated behavior of the simulated vehicles within the simulated environment, a developer may wish to test a response by a UAV to a customized skill based around tracking and capturing images of objects in motion by first simulating the response; i.e. a user can enter various parameter to a test environment to allow simulation of an object’s movement, and observing the object’s behavior, receiving tracking and captured images (dedicated parameter observation)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Prong II step 2A and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 19 recites additional elements such as “conducting a control process experiment to generate at least one control process instruction to cause the workstation to produce the actual control process observation target” and “generate at least one control process instruction for the cyber-physical object associated with the workstation from the parameter value variation upon a progress of the control process experiment; and control the control process experiment according to a predetermined control process experiment strategy”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to generating code to conduct a control experiment, which is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Maier et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0018826; paragraphs [0130]-[0136]; the operator control device is used to draw a specific pattern of movement on the object, a motion sequence is then carried out on the object in line with the “programmed” pattern of movement; i.e. generating instructions based on the movement pattern to cause the object to move in real world according to the movement pattern defined by the user (conducting an experiment according to the experiment strategy)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Prong II step 2A and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 19 recites additional elements such as “wherein generating the at least one control process instruction, by execution of at least one control process experimental step, comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 20-44 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of dependent claims 20-44 recite more steps of a mental process (pruning/modifying parameters, evaluating, computing, selecting, checking) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The additional element of dependent claims 20-44 also recite more steps of Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, such as code generating, controlling an experiment. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 63 (a computer a system with components to perform the steps of claim 19) with dependent claims 64-88 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 19-44. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
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 HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193