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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-11, as presented by the Amendment of 02 March 2026.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1-5 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “system” of claims 6-10 constitutes a machine under the statute, and the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” of independent claim 11 constitutes a manufacture under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-11 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method for representing a logistics area with a work line constituted of a plurality of work subjects, the method comprising: ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... simulating ... a work space representing an actual work space in which the plurality of work subjects work, the work space being an optimized simulation of the actual work space; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... monitoring an actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects in the actual work space ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... generating a heat map with each of the plurality of work subjects in the work space represented by the degree of deviation in movement based on the optimized movement simulated ... and the actual movement monitored ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), and mental processes
“... displaying the heat map simulating the work space ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... changing a color in the heat map for each of the plurality of work subjects in accordance with the degree of deviation in movement between the optimized movement simulated ... and the actual movement.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “monitoring” and “displaying” steps), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “simulating,” “comparing,” “generating,” and “changing” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “monitoring” is “in real time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claimed “simulating” is performed “using a digital twin” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “simulated” is performed “using the digital twin” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “monitored” is “in real time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)
The claimed “displaying” is “on a screen” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “simulated” is performed “using the digital twin” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-5, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “further comprising: measuring a work speed of each of the plurality of work subjects; and changing the color of the heat map in accordance with a difference between a work speed simulated ... and a measured actual work speed” of claim 2, the “method further comprising: detecting a braking action ...; and changing the color of the heat map in accordance with a difference in intensity or frequency between a braking action simulated ... and a detected actual braking action” of claim 3, the “further comprising: measuring an operation range of each of the plurality of work subjects; and changing the color of the heat map in accordance with a difference between an operation range simulated ... and a measured actual operation range” of claim 4, and the “further comprising: measuring a flow line of each of the plurality of work subjects; and changing the color of the heat map in accordance with a degree of deviation between a flow line simulated ... and a measured actual flow line” of claim 5). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “using the digital twin” of claim 2, the “wherein the plurality of work subjects includes a plurality of logistics robots ... of each of the plurality of logistics robots ... using the digital twin” of claim 3, the “using the digital twin” of claim 4, and the “using the digital twin” of claim 5). Additionally or alternatively, the “logistics robots” limitations may be viewed as field of use and technological environment, and not indicative of eligibility. Accordingly, claims 2-5 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 6-10, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-5. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-5 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 6-10. Claims 6-10 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004196553 A to Ueno et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Ueno”), in view of Qiu Y, Wang J, Jin Z, Chen H, Zhang M, Guo L. Pose-guided matching based on deep learning for assessing quality of action on rehabilitation training. Biomedical Signal Processing and Control. 2022 Feb 1;72:103323 (hereinafter referred to as “Qui”).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno discloses the following limitations:
“A method for representing a logistics area with a work line constituted of a plurality of work subjects, the method comprising: ...” - Ueno discloses, “To provide an object movement management method and a program for three-dimensionally carrying out object movement management by making a real-time display of the positions of goods, persons and objects such as conveying equipment moving in a prescribed region in a building or the like, and to provide an in-warehouse physical distribution management system and a program for carrying out the warehousing/delivery management, inventory management, yield management and safety management of goods in a physical distribution warehouse or the like” (English-language translation, p. 1), and “the computer simulates a physical distribution state in the warehouse based on information in the warehouse regarding the products, workers, and transport equipment in the warehouse obtained in advance, and displays the simulation on the monitor in a three-dimensional manner” (English-language translation, p. 6). The method involving displaying the simulation of the warehouse, including products, workers, and transport equipment therein, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation.
“... simulating, using a digital twin, a work space representing an actual work space in which the plurality of work subjects work, the work space being an optimized simulation of the actual work space; ...” - See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. Ueno also discloses, “the position information of the actual moving object (article) is obtained by using the program capable of simulating the moving object in the three-dimensional building model, and the position information of the article is converted into the three-dimensional building model” and “It is possible to grasp the actual situation of the warehouse operation status and propose improvements, and obtain daily operation data of moving objects (forklifts, people, goods, etc.) moving in the distribution warehouse, and position information of fixed objects (shelf, transport device / equipment, etc.) Then, the system is operated on the three-dimensional building model reproduced on the monitor 12 to grasp the problems, to plan and simulate an improvement plan, and to judge the pros and cons by visualizing the monitor 12. As a result, the operation status of the existing distribution warehouse can be improved and can be used as reference when constructing a new warehouse” (English-language translation, p. 10), and “Next, an improvement item is implemented (S05). That is, the arrangement of shelves and machines is improved, the building is renovated, and the like, and the flow-in / out flow line, inspection method, instruction method, and carry-in / out equipment are improved” (English-language translation, p. 11). Simulating, using the three-dimensional building model, the arrangement of shelves and machines in the building, that perform the object movements, wherein the arrangement represented by the three-dimensional building model is one that has undergone improvements, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation.
“... monitoring an actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects in the actual work space in real time; ...” - See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. Ueno also discloses, “the present invention detects a position of an object moving in a building in real time” (English-language translation, p. 7). The real time detecting, and the act of three-dimensionally carrying out object movement management by making the real-time display of the positions of goods, persons and objects such as conveying equipment moving in the prescribed region, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation.
“... comparing an optimized movement simulated using the digital twin of each of the plurality of work subjects and the actual movement of each of the plurality of work subjects monitored in the real time, and calculating a degree of deviation in movement between the optimized movement simulated using the digital twin and the actual movement for each of the plurality of work subjects; ...” - See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. Ueno also discloses, “The difference between the simulation result and the actual movement state of the object can be extracted” (English-language translation, p. 5), and “The movement of articles and the like based on the simulation result and the articles and transporting equipment moving in the actual distribution warehouse can be displayed on the monitor 12 three-dimensionally in real time on the screen of the monitor 12, whereby the simulation based on the advance plan By displaying the result and the actual movement status of the article, the transport device, and the like in, for example, different colors, the difference can be extracted” (English-language translation, p. 10). Providing visualizations indicating differences between the simulation movement and the actual movement in real time, and the underlying steps required to generate the visualizations, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation. Additionally or alternatively, the recited “calculating” limitation is disclosed by Qiu (see below).
The combination of Ueno and Qiu (hereinafter referred to as “Ueno/Qiu”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Ueno:
“... generating a heat map with each of the plurality of work subjects in the work space represented by the degree of deviation in movement based on the optimized movement simulated using the digital twin and the actual movement monitored in real time; ...” - See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. Identifying differences in simulated and actual movements of objects in real-time, in Ueno, reads on the recited “the degree of deviation in movement based on the optimized movement simulated using the digital twin and the actual movement monitored in real time” limitation. Qiu discloses, “to implement pose-guided matching between the learner’s pose and the standard pose” (p. 3), “Table 4 reports the accuracy in different parts of poses according to their heat map results which are obtained through Grad-CAM” (p. 8), “More details of matching results in different models can be observed in Fig. 8” (p. 8), and heat map visuals shown in Fig. 8. Generating the heat maps showing the learner with the overlayed heat map indicating the scores for similarities between elements of the learner’s pose and elements of the standard pose, in Qiu, when applied in the context of showing differences between simulation and actual movements, in Ueno, reads on the recited “generating a heat map with each of the plurality of work subjects in the work space represented by the degree of deviation” limitation. See also the examiner’s comments about Qiu in the Response to Arguments below.
“... displaying the heat map simulating the work space on a screen; and ...” - See the aspects of Ueno and Qiu that have been cited above. The displaying of the simulation data in comparison to the detected actual data on the screen of the monitor, including the different colors representing differences between simulated and actual, in Ueno, when depicted using the heat map of differences between poses, in Qiu, reads on the recited limitation.
“... changing a color in the heat map for each of the plurality of work subjects in accordance with the degree of deviation in movement between the optimized movement simulated using the digital twin and the actual movement.” - See the aspects of Ueno and Qiu that have been cited above. Modifying the color distribution of the heat map as the learner moves through the poses, wherein the color distribution indicates scoring of the level of difference between the learner’s poses and the standard poses, when applied in the context of comparing the simulated and actual movements of the objects, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation.
Qiu discloses pose-guided matching for assessing quality of action (title), similar to the claimed invention and to Ueno. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the movement analysis for identifying differences in movements, of Ueno, to include use of the heat mapping, of Qiu, for visual clarity and scoring indicative of magnitude of deviation, per Qiu (p. 6 and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Ueno/Qiu teaches the following limitations:
“The method according to claim 1, further comprising: measuring a work speed of each of the plurality of work subjects; and ...” - See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. Ueno also discloses “moving speed, destination, and loading/unloading equipment can be directly reflected on the three-dimensional model” (English-language translation, p. 11). Determining the moving speed of objects, persons, and equipment, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation.
“... changing the color of the heat map in accordance with a difference between a work speed simulated using the digital twin and a measured actual work speed.” - See the aspects of Ueno and Qiu that have been cited above. Using different colors to identify differences between simulation data from the three-dimensional model and actual data detected in real-time, wherein the data relates to moving speed, in Ueno, when modified so the different colors follow the heat map coloration based on the degree of difference in poses as people move through a series of positions, in Qiu, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Ueno/Qiu teaches the following limitations:
“The method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of work subjects includes a plurality of logistics robots, the method further comprising: ...” - See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. The conveying equipment, in Ueno, read on the recited limitation.
“... detecting a braking action of each of the plurality of logistics robots; and ...”- See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. Decreasing moving speed of the conveying equipment or the object handled thereby, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation.
“... changing the color of the heat map in accordance with a difference in intensity or frequency between a braking action simulated using the digital twin and a detected actual braking action.” - See the aspects of Ueno and Qiu that have been cited above. Using different colors to identify differences between simulation data from the three-dimensional model and actual data detected in real-time, wherein the data relates to decreases moving speeds of goods, persons, objects, conveying equipment, and the like, in Ueno, when modified so the different colors follow the heat map coloration based on deviation between actual and standard, in Qiu, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Ueno/Qiu teaches the following limitations:
“The method according to claim 1, further comprising: measuring an operation range of each of the plurality of work subjects; and ...” - See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. Detecting position information over time of goods, persons, objects, conveying equipment, and the like, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation.
“... changing the color of the heat map in accordance with a difference between an operation range simulated using the digital twin and a measured actual operation range.” - See the aspects of Ueno and Qiu that have been cited above. Using different colors to identify differences between simulation data from the three-dimensional model and actual data detected in real-time, wherein the data relates to differences in terms of position information of goods, persons, objects, conveying equipment, and the like, in Ueno, when modified so the different colors follow the heat map coloration based on divergence between actual and standard, in Qiu, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Ueno/Qiu teaches the following limitations:
“The method according to claim 1, further comprising: measuring a flow line of each of the plurality of work subjects; and ...” - See the aspects of Ueno that have been cited above. Ueno also discloses, “roller conveyors” (English-language translation, p. 3). Detecting the moving speeds and position information related to operation of the roller conveyors, in Ueno, reads on the recited limitation.
“... changing the color of the heat map in accordance with a degree of deviation between a flow line simulated using the digital twin and a measured actual flow line.” - See the aspects of Ueno and Qiu that have been cited above. Using different colors to identify differences between simulation data from the three-dimensional model and actual data detected in real-time, wherein the data relates to differences in terms of moving speed and position information of conveying equipment such as roller conveyors, and the like, in Ueno, when modified so the different colors follow the heat map coloration based on contrasting actual and standard, in Qiu, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claims 6-10, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-5. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-5 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 6-10. Further, any limitation recited by claims 6-10 that do not appear to have a direct counterpart in claims 1-5, such as the recited “system” and its components, are taught by Ueno/Qiu (see, e.g., the “distribution management system” and components in Ueno at the top of p. 8). Claims 6-10 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Ueno/Qiu.
Regarding claim 11, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 6, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1 and 6. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 6 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 11. Further, limitations recited by claim 11 that do not appear to have a direct counterpart in claims 1 and 6, such as the recited preamble limitations, and the recited synchronizing, of claim 11, are taught by Ueno/Qiu (see the “computer” and “program” aspects disclosed on p. 5 of the English-language translation of Ueno, and the “Alignment” aspects disclosed on pp. 4 and 5 of Qiu). Claim 11 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Ueno/Qiu.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 8 and 9 of the Amendment, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. The applicant contends that multiple limitations of the claims (e.g., from claim 1) do not fall under the enumerated abstract idea groupings from MPEP 2106.04(a). The examiner disagrees with the contentions. When additional elements are removed from the claim limitations highlighted by the applicant, the remaining steps can cover simulating or otherwise modelling a work space and people and equipment arranged therein, generating a report containing multiple heat map visualizations of the people and equipment that overlays actual movements of the people and equipment over expected movements, with multiple heat maps for the individual people and equipment showing, with coloring, degrees of divergence between actual and simulated movements. These are mental processes, as explained in more detail in the 35 USC 101 section above.. Note that the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 101 has been reconsidered and withdrawn.
On pp. 9-11 of the Amendment, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 103. The applicant contends that the combination of Ueno and Zilker fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every claim limitation. The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new ground of rejection relies on Qiu. The examiner contends that performing the 8 pose brocade requires movements, and as such, the poses are indicative (of stages) of movements, causing differences in poses to be indicative of differences in movements. Further, any monitoring, such as by video, can be viewed as a series of individual images shown in quick succession.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0085348 A1 to Kiefer et al. discloses, “A position reference device for rowing indicates the relative hip and hand positions of the rower over the course of each rowing stroke. The position reference device provides a reference for kinesthetic learning through constant feedback about torso and hand position. Embodiments of the feedback device can be used on either a boat or on a rowing machine. The embodiments for boats in particular provide the immediate on-water feedback that enables a rower to improve technique in a way that conventional feedback devices generally do not. The rowing machine embodiments enable rowers to improve skill while off the water thus enabling the rower to learn better technique even when it is not possible to row on water.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2013/0218373 A1 to Hedrick et al. discloses, “A method and system for highlighting a flight path deviation of an aircraft to a user in a multi-parameter aircraft instrument display, such as a flat panel display. A visibility attribute is configured to toggle between a standard state when the actual aircraft position is within a predetermined range of the target aircraft position, and an enhanced state when the actual aircraft position is outside the predetermined range. The electronic display is configured to highlight a flight path deviation when in the enhanced state, such as by displaying deviation scales having an actual aircraft position indicator relative to the target position, and increasing the size or changing the color of certain displayed elements, or displaying/concealing new elements. Such display features aid in focusing the pilot's attention to deviations from optimal flight paths and ensuring navigation accuracy and, therefore, safety.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0133689 A1 to Johnson et al. discloses, “Detected positions of robotic components during a surgical procedure may be compared with their expected positions as determined from surgical pre-planning in a virtual environment, such that deviations from the surgical plan may trigger a surgeon to perform adjustments to avoid collisions (e.g., change a pose of a robotic arm, etc.)” (Para. [0009].)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights