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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Amendments to the claims have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues are fully addressed with the new rejections made to the newly provided amendments.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because independent claim recited a non-transitory computer program comprising a computer-readable tangible storage medium and a program instruction to cause the processor to perform a method. The limitation of executable by a processor is not recited. Although the program maybe program instruction that is stored on the tangible storage medium, there is no indication that the program itself is executed, as the claim recites “for casing” but there is no indication that the implementation of the method is cased.
Amendments do not overcome the 101 as “executable by a processor” is a state that can happen. The claim must explicitly recite that the state has happened.
Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989)(during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signals per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. @ 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Insinuations for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. 8 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. 4 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. CJ: Animals -Patentability, 1 077 0) Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 5 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specifications silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
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.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject metter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 reads:
A method for configuring an electromechanical system to perform a first task, the method comprising:
accepting a specification of the first task;
accepting first user input from an operator related to the operator performing the first task, the first user input including a representation of user-referenced points; and
forming first control data for causing the system to perform the first task based on the specification of the first task and the first user input.
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, calculating, determining).
The method in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The abstract ideas are:
accepting a specification of the first task;
accepting first user input from an operator related to the operator performing the first task, the first user input including a representation of user-referenced points; and
forming first control data Analyzing the abstract idea we can understand that the abstract idea with the given examples.
accepting a specification of the first task; listening or watching something
accepting first user input from an operator related to the operator performing the first task, the first user input including a representation of user-referenced points; and listening or watching something
forming first control data thinking about the something
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception [receiving data, data gathering, data output] further addressed in WUEC; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the method is for:
“causing the system to perform the first task based on the specification of the first task and the first user input. ( Pre-solution data collection, data output)”.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Claim 1 further recites WURC extra steps of:
“configuring an electromechanical system to perform a first task; [insignificant extra solution; data gathering]
Analyzing the WURC steps of the abstract idea with the given examples.
we can understand that the abstract idea falls within the WURC Activity MPEP 2106.05(d)(1) Evaluation
improvement consideration WURC consideration MPEP.05(a);
mere instructions to apply an exception consideration MPEP 2106.05(f)
insignificant extra-solution activity consideration MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generic computer performing merely generic computer functions, data gathering, populating tables, sending and receiving data or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.
Amendments of “accepting second user input from the operator as the system performs the first task based on the first control data and forming updated first control data based on the second user input; and causing the electromechanical system to perform the task based on the updated first control data.” Does not overcome the 101 rejections as the “task” can be “the task trajectory data” as described in Applicant’s specifications para 34. “Executing a trajectory data” is simply “apply it level and or sending receiving data.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
2-6. data gathering
7. data processing
8-18. data processing and gathering
19-20 is rejected using the same rejections made to claim 1.
The claims are presented in a very broad manner and proper search and mapping cannot be conducted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claims 1-20 the phrase "accepting second user input" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitation of “second user input” is confusing to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would not know what is meant as “second user input” may be a “second person” having an input or a “second input” by a user.
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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yerazunis US 20220161247.
The specifications define accepting as using sensor to senso or using inertial measurement to measure change.
1. A method for configuring an electromechanical system to perform a first task, the method comprising:
accepting a specification of the first task; 10; centralized control system that incorporate databases that provide quick access to identifying information about target object to move from a starting position to a final position,
accepting first user input from an operator related to the operator performing the first task, the first user input including a representation of user-referenced points; 11; obtain operator data from an operator observing the work area prior to the gripper operation and obtain target object (TO) data from real-time [first, second … nth] sensors from the gripper system.
forming first control data for causing the system to perform the first task based on the specification of the first task and the first user input; 11; The received operator data can include command actions associated with moving the target object from a starting position within the workplace that meet a predetermined tentacle coordinated grip threshold.
accepting second user input from the operator as the system performs the first task based on the first control data and forming updated first control data based on the second user input;
11; gripper operation and obtain target object (TO) data from real-time [1st, 2nd, …. nth] sensors from the gripper system.
and causing the electromechanical system to perform the task based on the updated first control data. 11; obtain operator data from an operator.
3. The method of claim 2 further comprising forming second control data for causing the system to perform a second task, 11; gripper operation and obtain target object (TO) data from real-time [1st, 2nd, …. nth] sensors from the gripper system.
the forming being based at least in part on the specification of the first task, 11; obtain target object (TO)
a specification of the second task, 11; obtain target object (TO) data from real-time [1st, 2nd, …. nth]
the updated first control data, and 11; obtain target object (TO) data from real-time [always updating]
a plurality of constraints. 11; obtain operator data from an operator observing [operator constraint] the work area [location constraint] prior to [time constraint] the gripper operation [order constraint].
4. The method of claim 2 wherein the first control data is updated during the system's performance of the first task using the first control data to generate the updated first control data. 11; obtain target object (TO) data from real-time [during performance]
5. The method of claim 2 wherein the second user input represents corrections to the robot's performance of the first task. 11; obtain operator data [user input] from an operator observing the work area prior to the gripper operation and obtain target object (TO) data from real-time [corrections] sensors from the [robot’s] gripper system.
6. The method of claim 5 wherein the second user input includes gesture-based input representing corrections to the robot's performance of the first task. Fig. 3A Also 79; motion and/or gesture-tracking systems.
7. The method of claim 3 wherein forming the first control data includes determining first trajectory data for the electromechanical system to follow to complete the first task based on the first user input.154; similar types of [user input] data or data associated with trajectory optimization techniques
8. The method of claim 7 wherein forming the second control data includes determining second trajectory data for the electromechanical system to follow to complete the second task based at least in part the specification of the first task, the specification of the second task, the updated first control data, and the plurality of constraints. 154; similar types of [real time; nth] data or data associated with trajectory optimization techniques
9. The method of claim 8 wherein determining the second trajectory data includes generalizing an operation of the robot performing the first task such that the robot can complete the second task.21; represented by generalized shape methods [operation] such as point clouds.
10. The method of claim 8 wherein the plurality of constraints is expert-defined. Fig. 3A human defined thought glove. 73; depending upon a user set of requirements.
11. The method of claim 10 wherein the plurality of constraints includes a corresponding plurality of constraint definitions, at least some constraint definitions of the plurality of constraint definitions specifying a restriction on a behavior of the robot during performance of tasks. 117; The gripper system 600A is fully actuated [behavior] via servo motors A-L, with independent motion in every degree of freedom and realizing over +/−120° [restriction or constraint or behavior] of bend per tentacle section for the +/−90° [action or behavior limits] of servo motor shaft motion (the 120° motion limit versus the 162° tentacle section limit [action or behavior limits] is due to limited bell crank arm length lessening the available cable motion, not lack of servo torque). The minimum interior radius at maximum (120°)[action or behavior limits] curvature is about 30 mm[action or behavior limits]. Also 73; depending upon a user set of requirements.
12. The method of claim 11 wherein the constraint definitions specify restrictions on the behavior of the robot when the robot encounters points of interest during performance of tasks. 73; depending upon a user [points of interest] set of requirements.
13. The method of claim 1 wherein the first user input is measured using a sensor attached to the operator during performance of the first task by the operator. Fig. 3A
14. The method of claim 13 wherein the sensor includes an inertial measurement unit and an electromyography sensor.79; neural and brain implant controls,
15. The method of claim 14 wherein accepting the first user input includes using the electromyography sensor to sense muscular activity of the operator as the operator performs the first task. 79; neural and brain [brain to muscular system] implant controls. Also Fig. 3A finger muscles movement.
16. The method of claim 14 wherein accepting the first user input includes using the inertial measurement unit to measure changes in a position and orientation of the operator's hand.
17. The method of claim 14 wherein the first user input includes gesture-based input. Fig. 3A, 79; motion and/or gesture-tracking systems.
18. The method of claim 1 wherein at least some of the first user input includes gesture-based input including hand gestures for indicating the user-referenced points as the operator performs the first task. Fig. 3A, 79; motion and/or gesture-tracking [user-referenced points] systems.
19. is rejected using the same rejections made to claim 1.
20. is rejected using the same rejections made to claim 1.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oleynik US 20190291277
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 SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11am.-7pm..
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664