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 .
Responsive to communication filed on 27 February 2023.
Claims 1-11 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
IDS dated 02/27/2023 has been reviewed. See attached.
Drawings
The drawings dated 02/27/2023 have been reviewed. They are accepted.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract takes the form of a patent claim. Aside from the first sentence, the abstract is a direct copy of claim 1. Language such as “The method of the present disclosure” should also be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b) (specifically section C (“Language and Format”)).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, are within claim 10, specifically “a monitoring device” and “an information acquiring device”. Both limitations are a generic placeholder, both are followed by “configured to” (i.e. functional language), and both lack sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong One - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2A Prong Two - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. This evaluation considers any additional elements in the claim beyond any recited judicial exceptions.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More. This evaluation is to evaluate if the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
The additional elements are evaluated to determine if any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“simulating a work space in which the plurality of work subjects work”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail imagining an area where “work subjects” will work. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the digital twin simulation device is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“monitoring an actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects in the work space”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making an observation as to the real-time positions of “work subjects”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the monitoring system is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“detecting a deviation between a simulated movement and a monitored actual movement for each of the plurality of work subjects”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating whether a difference has occurred between the simulated movement and the actual movement of “work subjects”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the information processing device used to detect a difference in movement is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“acquiring, in response to detection of the deviation, information on a factor affecting a movement of a work subject in which the deviation occurs.” The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the reason behind why a “work subjects” movement has been impeded. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the monitored data database that supplies the information on the reasons as to why a work subjects’ movement has been impeded could, for example, consist of a screen that displays the information to a human worker; thus, the human worker would be acquiring the information. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
All claim limitations have been shown to be a judicial exception, thus there are no additional elements that would integrate the claim into a practical application.
Step 2B:
All claim limitations have been shown to be a judicial exception, thus there are no additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: “acquiring the information on the factor” has been established to be a judicial exception in claim 1. No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 2.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation “acquiring information on a state of the work subject in which the deviation occurs as the information on the factor”. This limitation has been identified as insignificant extra-solution activity. “Acquiring information on a state of the work subject” is merely further defining the type of information acquired.
The courts have ruled insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. This step is directed to mere data gathering as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(g)(ii)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: “acquiring the information on the factor” has been established to be a judicial exception in claim 1. No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 3.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
“the plurality of work subjects includes a logistics robot”. This limitation has been identified as a field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) since the claim is simply stating the judicial exception can be applied to the field of robotics.
“acquiring information obtained by an internal sensor of the logistics robot as the information on the factor”. This limitation has been identified as a field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) since the information that is being acquired is limited to being acquired by an internal sensor of a robot.
The courts have ruled that merely linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(h)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to linking a judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi)) is not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: “acquiring the information on the factor” has been established to be a judicial exception in claim 1. No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 4.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation “acquiring information on a work environment of a work subject in which the deviation occurs as the information on the factor”. This limitation has been identified as insignificant extra-solution activity. “Acquiring information on a work environment of the work subject” is merely further defining the type of information acquired. The courts have ruled insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. This step is directed to mere data gathering as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(g)(3)(ii)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: “acquiring the information on the factor” has been established to be a judicial exception in claim 1. No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 5.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation “acquiring an interlock state between a service provided in the logistics area and a work subject in which the deviation occurs as the information on the factor”. This limitation has been identified as insignificant extra-solution activity. In light of the specification, “acquiring an interlock state” is understood to be acquiring information on the interlock state between a service in the logistics area and a work subject. Thus, acquiring information on an interlock state between a service in the logistics area and a work subject is merely further defining the type of information acquired.
The courts have ruled that insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to insignificant extra-solution activity are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. This step is directed to mere data gathering as identified by the court (MPEP2106.05(g)(3)(ii)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: “monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects” and “detecting the deviation” has been established to be a judicial exception in claim 1. No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 6.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
“measuring a work speed of each of the plurality of work subjects”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely defining the type of data being gathered does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“detecting a difference equal to or greater than a threshold value generated between a simulated work speed and a measured actual work speed”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as this is understood to be merely gathering data on whether or not a deviation has occurred.
The courts have ruled that insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that testing a system for a response (measuring a work speed), that response being used to determine system malfunctions (detecting a difference) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (g)(ii)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: “monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects” and “detecting the deviation” has been established to be a judicial exception in claim 1. No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 7.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
“the plurality of work subjects includes a logistics robot”. This limitation has been identified as a field of use and technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) since the claim is simply stating the judicial exception can be applied to the field of robotics.
“detecting a braking action of the logistics robot”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely defining the type of data being gathered does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“detecting a difference equal to or greater than a threshold value in intensity or frequency between a simulated braking action and a detected actual braking action”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as this is understood to be merely gathering data on whether or not a deviation has occurred.
The courts have ruled that merely linking a judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment does not integrate the claim into a practical application. The courts have ruled that insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that testing a system for a response (detecting a braking action), that response being used to determine system malfunctions (detecting a difference) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (g)(ii)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: “monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects” and “detecting the deviation” has been established to be a judicial exception in claim 1. No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 8.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
“measuring an operating range of each of the plurality of work subjects”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely defining the type of data being gathered does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“detecting a difference equal to or greater than a threshold value generated between a simulated operating range and a measured actual operating range”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as this is understood to be merely gathering data on whether or not a deviation has occurred.
The courts have ruled that insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that testing a system for a response (measuring an operating range), that response being used to determine system malfunctions (detecting a difference) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (g)(ii)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: “monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects” and “detecting the deviation” has been established to be a judicial exception in claim 1. No further judicial limitations have been incorporated in claim 9.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
“measuring a flow line of each of the plurality of work subjects”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely defining the type of data being gathered does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“detecting a difference equal to or greater than a threshold value generated between a simulated flow line and a measured actual flow line”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as this is understood to be merely gathering data on whether or not a deviation has occurred.
The courts have ruled that insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that testing a system for a response (measuring a flow line), that response being used to determine system malfunctions (detecting a difference) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (g)(ii)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10:
Step 1: Claim 10 is directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“a simulator configured to simulate a work space in which the plurality of work subjects work”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail imagining an area where “work subjects” will work. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the digital twin simulation device is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“a monitoring device configured to monitor an actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects in the work space”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making an observation as to the real-time positions of “work subjects”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the monitoring system is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“an information acquiring device configured to, in response to detection of a deviation between a simulated movement and a monitored actual movement in any of the plurality of work subjects”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating whether a difference has occurred between the simulated movement and the actual movement of “work subjects”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the information processing device used to detect a difference in movement is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“acquire information on a factor affecting a movement of a work subject in which the deviation occurs.” The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the reason behind why a “work subjects” movement has been impeded. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the monitored data database that supplies the information on the reasons as to why a work subjects’ movement has been impeded could, for example, consist of a screen that displays the information to a human worker; thus, the human worker would be acquiring the information. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
All claim limitations have been shown to be a judicial exception, thus there are no additional elements that would integrate the claim into a practical application.
Step 2B:
All claim limitations have been shown to be a judicial exception, thus there are no additional elements that amount to an inventive concept.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11:
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
“simulating a work space in which the plurality of work subjects work”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail imagining an area where “work subjects” will work. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the digital twin simulation device is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“monitoring an actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects in the work space”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making an observation as to the real-time positions of “work subjects”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the monitoring system is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“detect a deviation between a simulated movement and a monitored actual movement for each of the plurality of work subjects”. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating whether a difference has occurred between the simulated movement and the actual movement of “work subjects”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the information processing device used to detect a difference in movement is a generic computer used to perform this function; however, the courts do not distinguish between a mental process performed in the human mind or on a generic computer. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
“acquiring, in response to detection of the deviation, information on a factor affecting a movement of a work subject in which the deviation occurs.” The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the reason behind why a “work subjects” movement has been impeded. Under broadest reasonable interpretation and when read in light of the specification, the monitored data database that supplies the information on the reasons as to why a work subjects’ movement has been impeded could, for example, consist of a screen that displays the information to a human worker; thus, the human worker would be acquiring the information. This task can be practically performed in the human mind or using an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
“acquiring simulation data”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely defining the type of data being gathered does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
“acquiring monitoring data”. This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Merely defining the type of data being gathered does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The courts have ruled that insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The courts have found that testing a system for a response (acquiring simulation/monitoring data), that response being used to determine system malfunctions (detecting a deviation) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (g)(ii)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
1. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno_2004 (JP 2004/196553 A) in view of Cattaneo_2024 (US 2024/0061427 A1).
Claim 1. Ueno_2004 teaches “A management method for a logistics area (Par. 1 “The present invention relates to and object movement management method…”) with a work line constituted of a plurality of work subjects (Abstract: “To provide an object movement management method… for three-dimensionally carrying out object movement management by making a real-time display of the positions of goods, persons and object such as conveying equipment moving in a prescribed region in a building or the like…), the management method comprising: simulating a work space in which the plurality of work subjects work (Par. 35: “…the computer simulates the physical distribution situation in the warehouse… regarding the products, workers, and conveying equipment in the warehouse…”); monitoring an actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects in the work space (Par. 24: “…obtaining position information of an object moving in a predetermined area… and monitoring the position of the object in real time…”); detecting a deviation between a simulated movement and a monitored actual movement for each of the plurality of work subjects (Par. 36: “…the computer displays the difference between the simulation result… and the actual movement of the object… so that the difference between the simulation… and the actual movement of the object can be extracted.”).
Ueno_2004 does not teach “acquiring, in response to detection of the deviation, information on a factor affecting a movement of a work subject in which the deviation occurs”.
Cattaneo_2024, however, teaches “acquiring, in response to detection of the deviation (Par. 93: “…when a discrepancy above a predefined threshold is detected between the real information acquired in real time and the corresponding information deriving from the simulation…”, information on a factor affecting a movement of a work subject in which the deviation occurs” (Par. 59: “The method can be further performed by continuously acquiring also a third item of data by means of which an environmental condition of the warehouse is identified.”; Par. 61: “…an environmental condition is considered as an information related to a travelability status of at least one area of the warehouse by means of which the computer is notified in real time if at a given instant a certain area of the warehouse is actually passable by the trolleys or not.”)
Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called logistics management simulations. Before the effective filling date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024. The rationale for doing so would have been that Ueno_2004 teaches a logistics management method that utilizes a simulation to track work subject movement and deviations in said movement and Cattaneo_2024 teaches a method that can receive information on the operational status of work subject (NOTE: “operational status” is defined in Par. 49 as “…information which can indicate, for example, the occurrence of faults which prevent the correct operation of the trolley…”; faults is read as a factor affecting a movement of a work subject). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the management method of Ueno_2004 with the operational status tracking of Cattaneo_2024 to provide more timely and accurate information to managerial staff.
Claim 2. Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 teach the limitations of claim 1. Cattaneo_2024 also makes obvious “acquiring the information on the factor comprises acquiring information on a state of the work subject in which the deviation occurs as the information on the factor” (Par. 20: “The method is performed by continuously acquiring a first item of data identifying a real operating condition of a plurality of trolleys…”).
Claim 4. Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 teach the limitations of claim 1. Ueno_2004 also makes obvious “acquiring the information on the factor comprises acquiring information on a work environment of a work subject in which the deviation occurs as the information on the factor” (Par. Par. 59: “The method can be further performed by continuously acquiring also a third item of data by means of which an environmental condition of the warehouse is identified.”; Par. 61: “…an environmental condition is considered as an information related to a travelability status of at least one area of the warehouse by means of which the computer is notified in real time if at a given instant a certain area of the warehouse is actually passable by the trolleys or not.”).
Claim 6. Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 teach the limitations of claim 1. Cattaneo_2024 also makes obvious “monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects comprises measuring a work speed of each of the plurality of work subjects (Par. 96: “…the first item of data also indicates the speed of movement of the trolleys…”, and the detecting the deviation comprises detecting a difference equal to or greater than a threshold value generated between a simulated work speed and a measured actual work speed” (Par. 92: “…the predictive model is applied whenever the two items of information are different or have differences greater than a predefined threshold value”).
Claim 8. Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 teach the limitations of claim 1. Cattaneo_2024 also makes obvious “monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects comprises measuring an operating range of each of the plurality of work subjects (Par. 95: “For example…when the real position of at least one trolley is more than 50 metres from its simulated ideal position”, and the detecting the deviation comprises detecting a difference equal to or greater than a threshold value generated between a simulated operating range and a measured actual operating range” (Par. 92: “…the predictive model is applied whenever the two items of information are different or have differences greater than a predefined threshold value”).
Claim 9. Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 teach the limitations of claim 1. Cattaneo_2024 also makes obvious “monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects comprises measuring a flow line of each of the plurality of work subjects (Par. 63: “…the handling paths followed/attributed to the other trolleys… are also evaluated.”), and the detecting the deviation comprises detecting a difference equal to or greater than a threshold value generated between a simulated flow line and a measured actual flow line” (Par. 92: “…the predictive model is applied whenever the two items of information are different or have differences greater than a predefined threshold value”).
Claim 10. The limitations of claim 10 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Cattaneo_2024 teaches the further limitations of “a monitoring device” (Par. 33 “…the position of objects such as goods, people, transport equipment, etc. … is received by the receiver from the transmitter….”); and “an information acquiring device” (Par. 127: “The system comprises at least one interface module configured to continuously acquire the first item of data and the second item of data”).
Claim 11. The limitations of claim 11 are substantially the same as those of claim 1 and are rejected due to the same reasons as outlined above for claim 1. Additionally, Ueno_2004 teaches the further limitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing for managing a logistics area with a work line constituted of a plurality of work subjects” (Par. 31: “A program according to the present invention is a program for causing a computer to execute the object movement management method…”).
2. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno_2004 in view of Cattaneo_2024 in view of Takahashi_2018 (US 2018/0107174 A1).
Claim 3. Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 teach the limitations of claim 1. Cattaneo_2024 further teaches “the plurality of work subjects includes a logistics robot,” (Par. 40: “…the term trolleys can therefore indicate self-propelled elements such as self-guided vehicles (for example robots)…”).
Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 do not teach “the acquiring the information on the factor comprises acquiring information obtained by an internal sensor of the logistics robot as the information on the factor.”
Takahashi_2018, however, teaches “the acquiring the information on the factor (Par. 13: “there is provided a human collaborative robot system having a function of detecting a force… and a learning unit into which sensing data for calculating the force…” NOTE: “force” is in reference to an outside force being applied to the robot (see Abstract) comprises acquiring information obtained by an internal sensor of the logistics robot as the information on the factor” (Par. 38: “The resultant force converter 224, for example converts a signal from a force sensor provided in a J1 base of the robot 201…”).
Ueno_2004, Cattaneo_2024, and Takahashi_2018 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called robotics. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ueno_2004, Cattaneo_2024, and Takahashi_2018. The rationale for doing so would be that the force detection and collection of Takahashi_2018 can act as a method to acquire information on a factor affecting movement (Takahashi_2018 Par. 16: “The human collaborative robot may include a control device having a function of stopping the human collaborative robot, when the separated first force component exceeds a certain threshold value…” (i.e. the robot was in motion before the external force was applied)) of the work subjects of Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024.
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno_2004 in view of Cattaneo_2024 in view of Takeda_2018 (US 2018/0178379 A1).
Claim 5. Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 teach the limitations of claim 1. Cattaneo_2024 makes obvious “the acquiring the information on the factor… in which the deviation occurs as the information on the factor” (Par. 59: “The method can be further performed by continuously acquiring also a third item of data by means of which an environmental condition of the warehouse is identified.”; Par. 61: “…an environmental condition is considered as an information related to a travelability status of at least one area of the warehouse by means of which the computer is notified in real time if at a given instant a certain area of the warehouse is actually passable by the trolleys or not.”; Par. 36: “…the computer displays the difference between the simulation result… and the actual movement of the object… so that the difference between the simulation… and the actual movement of the object can be extracted.”)
Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 do not teach “…comprises acquiring an interlock state between a service provided in the logistics area and a work subject…”.
Takeda_2018, however, teaches “…comprises acquiring an interlock state between a service provided in the logistics area and a work subject” (Par. 19: “The information related to the system state includes, for example, information on whether each device included in the robot system is in a stand-by state…”; Par. 41: “The entire task time includes the sum of task times taken for processes, any stand-by time…, and any interlock time due to interference among the devices” NOTE: “devices” is defined to be robots or tools utilized by robots in Par. 17, Par. 19, and Fig. 5).
Ueno_2004, Cattaneo_2024, and Takeda_2018 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called simulations. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ueno_2004, Cattaneo_2024, and Takeda_2018. The rationale for doing so would be to obtain the information on if a worker (e.g. robot) were in an interlock state (Takeda_2018) to deduce if the interlock state was a factor affecting movement of the worker (Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024).
4. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno_2004 in view of Cattaneo_2024 in view of Kimura_2020 (US 2020/0409317 A1).
Claim 7. Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 teach the limitations of claim 1. Cattaneo_2024 further teaches “the plurality of work subjects includes a logistics robot” (Par. 40: “…the term trolleys can therefore indicate self-propelled elements such as self-guided vehicles (for example robots)…)” and “comprises detecting a difference equal to or greater than a threshold value” (Par. 92: “…the predictive model is applied whenever the two items of information are different or have differences greater than a predefined threshold value”). Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 do not teach “the monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects comprises detecting a braking action of the logistics robot, and the detecting the deviation…. in intensity or frequency between a simulated braking action and a detected actual braking action”.
Kimura_2020, however, teaches “the monitoring the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects comprises detecting a braking action of the logistics robot and the detecting the deviation” (Par. 38: “… it is important to consider a difference in motion characteristic between the model on the simulator and the real robot.” NOTE: Motion characteristics are defined to include deceleration in Par. 93), “in intensity or frequency between a simulated braking action and a detected actual braking action” (Fig. 9; Par. 114: “…the similarity calculation unit calculates similarity between a movement result… and the plurality of simulation results…”).
Ueno_2004, Cattaneo_2024, and Kimura_2020 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor called simulations. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ueno_2004, Cattaneo_2024, and Kimura_2020. The rationale for doing so would have been to include deceleration information (i.e. detection and intensity) of Kimura_2020 to the data (i.e. “work speed”, “operating range”, and “flow line”) being collected from Ueno_2004 and Cattaneo_2024 to make a better determination of the factor affecting a movement of a work subject from Cattaneo_2024.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER W LYON whose telephone number is (571)270-0757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:30, Friday 8:30-12:30.
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, Emerson Puente, can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/ALEXANDER W LYON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights