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 7/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 21-26, 28-33, and 35-40 remain pending in the present application. Despite the new claims, the present application is still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 27 and 34 have been canceled.
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 21-26, 28-33, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 21 recites, “identifying first motions in the first images to form a first motion document;”, “counting a frequency of occurrence of each of at least one second keyword in the first motion document; “identifying second motions in the second images;”, and “comparing the second motions and the first motions corresponding to the second motions, to determine a qualified number of the second motions of each of the at least one second operation target;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of identifying motions given image data, counting the number of times a keyword appears, and comparing two sets of data to determine qualified motions which are limitations that can reasonably be performed in the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, claim 21 includes the limitation of, “calculating a pass rate of the second motions of each of the at least one second operation target based on the qualified number.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations that involve mathematical calculations which falls within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 21 includes the additional limitations of, “generating and displaying guiding information based on the first motions;”, “deleting the repeating motions in the first motion document”, and “in response to that the pass rate is less than a first threshold value, generating an alarm”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes limitations of generating/displaying information based on received data, deleting data, and simply generating an alarm which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claim 21 includes the limitations of, “controlling the cameras to capture first images of a first operation target, the first operation target being configured to execute reference operations on a machine of the at least one workstation, and the first images captured by the cameras being stored in the storing unit;” and “controlling the cameras to capture second images of at least one second operation target based on the guiding information;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, describes utilizing cameras to capture motion data, which adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 21 also includes the limitations of, “wherein the frequency in a highest value represents a repeating motion;”, “wherein the guiding information is configured to guide one or more motions of at least one second operation target;”, and “wherein the alarm is configured to prompt that the motions of the second operation target is abnormal;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, provide description as to what depicts a repeating motion, how the guiding information is used to guide a motion of an operation target, and describe that the alarm indicates a motion is abnormal which just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Finally, the limitations of, “an electronic device”, “a processor”, “a storing unit”, “a workstation”, and “cameras”, each as generally recited represent merely 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 motion data from a device 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”).
Independent claims 28 and 35 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as presented above.
Dependent claims 22-26, 29-33, and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 23, 30, 33, 37, and 40, each include further limitations of setting error ranges, making comparisons based on the ranges, determining qualified motions based upon deviations regarding the error ranges, segmenting data, and counting frequency of and occurrence of keywords, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, are all limitations that can reasonably be performed in the human mind/with pen and paper, and thus fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, claims 22, 29, and 36, each include limitations involving the calculation of deviations and resulting qualified movements, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, involve limitations which include mathematical calculations and thus fall within the, “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Further, claims 22, 24-25, 29, 31-32, and 38-39, each includes limitations describing the order in which data is stored and further the type of format the data is stored as and contents of the first and second motion documents, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (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 motion data from a device 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
Applicants’ arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues:
That the newly amended limitations and steps of “counting a frequency of occurrence of each of at least one second keywords in the first motion document;”, “deleting repeating motions in the first motion document”, “generating and displaying guiding information based on the first motion document”, and “in response to that the pass rate is less thana first threshold value, generating alarm”; provides a defined technical outcome of “forming a standard motion document”, “automatically guiding the motions of the second operation targets according to the guiding information”, decreasing complexity of the first motion document”, and automatically evaluating the guiding effect based on the alarm”. This provides a particular improvement in establishing a standard motion document, deleting redundant motions in the standard motion document, and evaluating the motions of each of the second operation targets.
With regards to the applicant’s arguments, the office understands that the overall goal is to improve the standard motion document, and the office agrees that based upon the current claims that it captures the improvements as described in the arguments, however, the steps of improving this document as a whole still merely represent an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regards to the first limitation of, “counting a frequency of occurrence of each of at least one second keywords in the first motion document;”, this entails to merely counting the occurrence that a keyword appears in control program, which a user given a copy of this control program, can reasonably identify any repeating keywords that might appear and subsequently count their occurrence to determine repeated motions. This is an act that is very reasonably done in the human mind without the need of assistance from a computer or specialized processor.
Per the MPEP 2106.04(a)(III): III. MENTAL PROCESSES[AltContent: rect]
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). [AltContent: rect]
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.
And further, the courts have identified specific cases similar to the present application which demonstrate further the direction towards an abstract idea in: “n contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:[AltContent: rect]
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
With regards to the last three limitations of, “deleting repeating motions in the first motion document”, “generating and displaying guiding information based on the first motion document”, and “in response to that the pass rate is less thana first threshold value, generating alarm”; these particular limitations do not on their own sufficiently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For reference, the MPEP 2106.05(f) first states:
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"). [AltContent: rect]
Requiring more than mere instructions to apply an exception does not mean that the claim must be narrow in order to be eligible. The courts have identified some broad claims as eligible see, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d. 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2017), and some narrow claims as ineligible see e.g., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, examiners should carefully consider each claim on its own merits, as well as evaluate all other relevant considerations, before making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is more than mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, because this consideration often overlaps with the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the particular machine and particular transformation considerations (see MPEP § 2106.05(b) and (c), respectively), and the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether an element (or combination of elements) is more than mere instructions to apply an exception. Note, however, that examiners should not evaluate the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration in the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, because that consideration is only evaluated in Step 2B.[AltContent: rect]
With that in mind, we then compare the effect of each limitation, which in the present case simply provides modification to a motion document and then also provides two limitations which provide display/notification as a part of the process. However, the act of modifying data and displaying results have already been deemed by the courts as supplementary actions that do NOT amount to significantly more nor do they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As further detailed in MPEP 2106.05(f)(1):
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")).
As clearly stated in the above passage, the act of displaying (i.e. displaying guiding motion, providing an alarm/alert) data and manipulating data (i.e. deleting repeating motions) was NOT considered sufficient enough to integrated the judicial exception into a practical application and thus, just merely applied the use of the judicial exception. As such, in light of the new limitations, the office still argues that the claims as presently presented represent an abstract idea and is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
***Again, and only if the specification supports, if the system somehow has controlling features regarding the success/failure of the qualified movement rate, for instance, if the number of qualified movements fall below a threshold, controlling the motion device to stop movements, this could be a potential path to show the device taking control actions in response to the determinations being made or if the robots utilize the improved motion documents which have been modified to improve performance, this would show significantly more than the abstract idea.***
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang (US PGPUB 20220072701): disclose a robot control system and method which calculates the distance between consecutive points, and if the distance is below a threshold is considered to be redundant and subsequently deletes one of the points in order to reduce complexity.
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
Prosecution Insights