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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Stranborg does not teach all the limitations of amended claim 1, specifically:
determine, by the at least one processor before the second time, a predicted position of the at least one member of the robot body at the second time based on the identified motion path;
and determine whether the predicted position of the at least one member of the robot body is between the first position of the first object at the first time and a position of the image sensor
No art was found through further search that teaches or suggests or renders obvious the limitations above in combination with the other elements of the claims. Therefore, claim 1 is deemed novel. Hence 102 rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims has been withdrawn.
However, the claims are not in condition for allowance as they are not eligible under 35 USC 101. See rejection below.
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 1-4, 7, 8 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 20 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed towards a system, and as such falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed toward an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The system of claim 1 contains a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. The claim merely determines is if an object is represented in image data or not, and further determines if the object is occluded or not. A human can look at an image and determine if an object is represented or not and further determine if the object is occluded or not.
Therefore, the following limitations are directed towards a mental process.
determine, by the at least one processor, whether the first object is occluded from the second image data by at least one member of the robot body at the second time, and wherein the processor-executable instructions and/or data which cause the robot system to determine whether the first object is occluded from the second image data by at least one member of the robot body at the second time cause the robot system to:
identify, at a third time before the second time, a motion path of the at least one member of the robot body;
determine, by the at least one processor before the second time, a predicted position of the at least one member of the robot body at the second time based on the identified motion path;
and determine whether the predicted position of the at least one member of the robot body is between the first position of the first object at the first time and a position of the image sensor;
if the first object is occluded from the second image data by the at least one member of the robot body at the second time: maintain representation of the first object in the environment model;
if the first object is not occluded from the second image data by the at least one member of the robot body at the second time: remove representation of the first object from the environment model;
Furthermore, maintaining representation of first object or removing representation of first object is observation evaluation or judgement. Hence, collecting information, analyzing it and displaying results of collection analysis. And as such it recognized as a mental process, see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
The abstract idea identified in step 2A prong 1 is performed by a processor. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the following limitations are directed towards mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
at least one image sensor carried by the robot body;and a robot controller;
capture, by the at least one image sensor, first image data representing the physical environment at a first time, the first image data further representing a first object at a first position;
capture, by the at least one image sensor, second image data representing the physical environment at a second time after the first time;
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Limitations identified as “apply it” in step 2A qualify as apply it in step 2B as well.
With respect to “capturing a first image data and second image data”, this is receiving or transmitting data. And as such has been recognized as well-understood
routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 2, the claim further limits storing information by populating environment model with first representation of first object. This is storing and retrieving information and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 3, determining “whether the environment model includes the first representation of the first object” is still directed towards an abstract idea. And preserving first representation of the first object and populating environment model with representation of first object is storing and retrieving information.
With respect to claim 4, identifying s second position of a second object and determining whether the second position of the at least one second object is between the first position of the first object at the first time and a position of the image sensor at the second time is a mental process, hence an abstract idea. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 7, “at least one member of the robot body includes at least one end-effector of the robot body” merely defines body of robot and is still part of generally linking. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 8, “at least one end-effector of the robot body includes at least one hand member of the robot body” merely defines body of robot and is still part of generally linking. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 10, “identify the motion path of the at least one member of the robot body by simulating, by the at least one processor, a trajectory of the at least one member of the robot body based on speed and direction of travel of the at least one member of the robot body” is still a mathematical calculation, hence an abstract idea. And as it is performed by a processor, is merely apply it. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 11, “comprising at least one haptic sensor carried by the robot body, wherein the speed and direction of travel of the at least one member of the robot body are identified based on haptic data captured by the at least one haptic sensor” is merely defining a sensor and is directed towards mere data gathering. Therefore is an insignificant extract solution activity.
With respect to claim 12, “speed and direction of travel of the at least one member of the robot body are identified based on image data from the at least one image sensor” is directed towards a mental process, hence an abstract idea. And merely uses data from a sensor. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 13, “identify the motion path of the at least one member of the robot body based on at least one motion instruction upon which movement of the at least one member of the robot body is based” is still part of the abstract idea. Although a motion instruction for robot is recited, the instruction is not recited to be generated by the claimed system. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 14, the claim merely defines a processor to be carried by robot body. Therefore, is not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 15, the claim merely recites environment model is stored in a storage medium and the storage medium is carried by robot. This is generally inking at the most and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 16, the claim merely recites storage medium is at a remote device and the storage medium stores environment model. This is generally inking at the most and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to claim 17, the determining whether object is represented or not represented in image data is a mental process and not considered a practical application or significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7, 8 and 10-17 would be allowable if amended to overcome 101 rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARSLAN AZHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1703. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/ARSLAN AZHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/WADE MILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights