DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 have been examined and are pending.
Claims 1-10 are rejected (Non-Final Rejection).
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of the certified copy of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner’s Note: The priority documents for JP 2021-005871 (filed 18 January 2021 in JPO) were received but appear to be scanned in last-to-first order.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2023 and 08/14/2025, respectively, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s note: The English language translation of JP 2020-142353 goes back & forth between English & Japanese languages. See, e.g., Paras. [0035]-[0037] of the supplied translation of the reference below.
PNG
media_image1.png
551
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
<Paras. [0035]-[0037] of “English language” translation of JP 2020-142353>
Examiner has considered the JP 2020-142353 reference but believes, for future reference, the error may have been where a machine translation was attempted via a web browser, but print was initiated prior to every paragraph being fully translated.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “the gap detection method is to detect …” and “the gap detection method comprises the steps of: measuring …”, which appears to be an artifact of Applicant’s editing process. In addition, it is not clear that the “detecting” step is positively recited in claim 9. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests amending claim 9 to recite “detecting …, measuring …”.
Claim 10 recites “a second link configured to the first link”, which appears to be an artifact of Applicant’s editing process. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner suggests amending claim 10 to recite “a second link configured to be driven by the first link” for consistency with the second link of claims 1 and 9.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “measurement unit” and “simulation unit” in claim 1, “gap calculation unit” in claims 1, 2, 4 and 6, “feature amount calculation unit” in claims 1 and 5 and “judgment unit” in claim 7.
The “measurement unit” and “simulation unit” in claims 1 and 10, “gap calculation unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10, “feature amount calculation unit” in claims 1 and 5 and “judgment unit” in claim 7 are considered “generic placeholders” under Prong A. Prong B is satisfied because each of these claim elements are modified by functional language including reciting “configured to”.
For “measurement unit” and Prong C, the only acts provided in the claim(s) for performing the “measurement unit” are: “measure a drive torque or a current value of the motor …”. These acts of claim 1 do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.” Claim 10 includes similar language and is interpreted in a similar fashion.
For “simulation unit” and Prong C, the only acts provided in the claim(s) for performing the “simulation unit” are: “set an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the plurality of pairs, execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along the same motion trajectory as the arbitrary motion trajectory, and estimate the drive torque or the current value of the motor”. These acts of claim 1 do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.” Claim 10 includes similar language and is interpreted in a similar fashion.
For “gap calculation unit” and Prong C, the only acts provided in claim 1 for performing the “gap calculation unit” are: “calculate an index relating to the first gap amount …”. These acts of claim 1 do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.” Claim 10 includes similar language and is interpreted in a similar fashion, and claims 2, 4 and 6 do not cure the deficiency of claim 1.
For “feature amount calculation unit” and Prong C, the only acts provided in claim 1 for performing the “feature amount calculation unit” are: “calculate a first feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the drive torque or the current value measured by the measurement unit and a second feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the drive torque or the current value estimated by the simulation unit”. These acts of claim 1 do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.” Claim 5 does not cure the deficiency.
For “judgment unit” and Prong C, the only acts provided in claim 7 for performing the “judgment unit” are: “judge as abnormal the gap of the pair whose index relating to the first gap amount exceeds a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of pairs”. These acts of claim 7 do not provide “sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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 limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 10, the claim limitations of “measurement unit” and “simulation unit” in claims 1 and 10, “gap calculation unit” in claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 10, “feature amount calculation unit” in claims 1 and 5 and “judgment unit” in claim 7 each invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function(s) and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function(s). While the claimed limitations are present in the specification, the specification does not disclose a corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. See MPEP 2181 II(B). Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 2-8 depend respectively from one or more of rejected claims 1 and 2. Therefore, claims 2-8 are also rejected under the same rationale since these claims inherit the respective deficiencies of at least one of: claim 1 or claim 2.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
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 claim(s) recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The following is an analysis based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG).
Step 1, Statutory Category:
Yes: Claims 1-8 and 10 are directed to the statutory category of a machine. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes: Claim 9 is directed to the statutory category of a process. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A:
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
1. A gap detection device for a robot, the robot comprising: a drive link configured to be driven by a motor; a plurality of passive links configured to be driven by a motion of the drive link; and a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links, wherein the gap detection device is configured to detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the passive link, and the gap detection device comprises:
a measurement unit configured to measure a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory;
a simulation unit configured to set an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the plurality of pairs, execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along the same motion trajectory as the arbitrary motion trajectory, and estimate the drive torque or the current value of the motor;
a feature amount calculation unit configured to calculate a first feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the drive torque or the current value measured by the measurement unit and a second feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the drive torque or the current value estimated by the simulation unit; and
a gap calculation unit configured to calculate an index relating to the first gap amount based on the first feature amount, the second feature amount and the second gap amount.
The limitations of “set an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the plurality of pairs”, “execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along the same motion trajectory as the arbitrary motion trajectory” and “estimate the drive torque or the current value of the motor” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could set a gap amount between pairing elements of a robot and simulate the robot moving on paper with a pen, and mentally estimate a drive torque or current value of the motor. In addition, the limitations of “calculate a first feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the drive torque or the current value measured … and a second feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the drive torque or the current value estimated” and “calculate an index relating to the first gap amount based on the first feature amount, the second feature amount and the second gap amount”, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 1 Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “for a robot, the robot comprising: a drive link configured to be driven by a motor; a plurality of passive links configured to be driven by a motion of the drive link; and a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of robotics (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
• “detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the passive link” and “measure a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data inputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
• “measurement unit”, “simulation unit”, “feature amount calculation unit” and “gap calculation unit” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer).
Claim 1 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are three types of additional elements. The first type is the “for” a robot comprising a drive link. As explained previously, the “for” a robot comprising a drive link is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of robotics. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (e.g., robotics/autonomous vehicles), does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The second type of additional element is “detect” and “measure”, which as explained previously is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering/inputting). Recitation of detecting a gap amount and measuring a drive torque or motor value is mere data gathering/inputting that is recited at a high level of generality, and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation does not amount to significantly more.
The third type of additional elements are the generic computer components (the various “units” configured to perform the functional steps), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 1 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 1 is not patent subject matter eligible. Dependent claims 2-8 are further addressed below after addressing each independent claim.
Claim 9 Step 2A prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
9. A gap detection method for a robot, the robot comprising: a drive link configured to be driven by a motor; a plurality of passive links configured to be driven by a motion of the drive link; and a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links, wherein the gap detection method is to detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the passive link, and the gap detection method comprises the steps of:
measuring a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory;
setting an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the plurality of pairs, executing a simulation in which the robot is moved along the same motion trajectory as the arbitrary motion trajectory, and estimating the drive torque or the current value of the motor;
calculating a first feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the measured drive torque or the measured current value and a second feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the estimated drive torque or the estimated current value; and
calculating an index relating to the first gap amount based on the first feature amount, the second feature amount and the second gap amount.
The limitations of “setting an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the plurality of pairs”, “executing a simulation in which the robot is moved along the same motion trajectory as the arbitrary motion trajectory” and “estimating the drive torque or the current value of the motor” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could set a gap amount between pairing elements of a robot and simulate the robot moving on paper with a pen, and mentally estimate a drive torque or current value of the motor. In addition, the limitations of “calculating a first feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the measured drive torque or the measured current value and a second feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the estimated drive torque or the estimated current value” and “calculating an index relating to the first gap amount based on the first feature amount, the second feature amount and the second gap amount”, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 9 Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “for a robot, the robot comprising: a drive link configured to be driven by a motor; a plurality of passive links configured to be driven by a motion of the drive link; and a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of robotics (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
• “detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the passive link” and “measuring a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data inputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 9 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are two types of additional elements. The first type is the “for” a robot comprising a drive link. As explained previously, the “for” a robot comprising a drive link is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of robotics. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (e.g., robotics/autonomous vehicles), does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The second type of additional element is “detect” and “measure”, which as explained previously is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering/inputting). Recitation of detecting a gap amount and measuring a drive torque or motor value is mere data gathering/inputting that is recited at a high level of generality, and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 9 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 9 is not patent subject matter eligible.
Claim 10 Step 2A prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. The limitations of the claims that describe abstract ideas are bolded.
1. A gap detection device for a robot, the robot comprising: a first link configured to be driven by a motor; a second link configured to the first link; and one or more pair connected to the second link, wherein the gap detection device is configured to detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the second link, and the gap detection device comprises:
a measurement unit configured to measure a first output value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory;
a simulation unit configured to set an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the pair, execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along the motion trajectory, and estimate a second output value of the motor; and
a gap calculation unit configured to calculate the first gap amount based on a change in the first output value, a change in the second output value and the second gap amount.
The limitations of “set an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the pair, execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along the motion trajectory, and estimate a second output value of the motor” are abstract ideas because they are directed to mental processes, observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions. The limitations, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a human could set a gap amount between pairing elements of a robot and simulate the robot moving on paper with a pen, and mentally estimate a drive torque or other output value of the motor. In addition, the limitation of “calculate the first gap amount based on a change in the first output value, a change in the second output value and the second gap amount”, as drafted and under broadest reasonable interpretation, “can be performed using mathematical equations”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 10 Step 2A prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception/Abstract idea into practical application?
Under Step 2A prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations of:
• “for a robot, the robot comprising: a first link configured to be driven by a motor; a second link configured to the first link; and one or more pair connected to the second link” (general field of use or technological environment – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(h); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of robotics (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
• “detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the second link” and “measure a first output value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory” (insignificant extra-solution activity – mere data gathering/inputting – See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation can be viewed as nothing more than mere data inputting in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
• “measurement unit”, “simulation unit” and “gap calculation unit” (mere instructions to apply an exception to a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f); these limitations can be viewed as nothing more than high level recitations of generic computer components or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer).
Claim 10 Step 2B: Do the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained above, there are three types of additional elements. The first type is the “for” a robot comprising a drive link(s). As explained previously, the “for” a robot comprising a drive link(s) is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of robotics. For the claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the claim limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because the claim limitations employ generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment (e.g., robotics/autonomous vehicles), does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The second type of additional element is “detect” and “measure”, which as explained previously is insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering/inputting). Recitation of detecting a gap amount and measuring a drive torque or motor value is mere data gathering/inputting that is recited at a high level of generality, and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (WURC). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). This limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Thus, limitation does not amount to significantly more.
The third type of additional elements are the generic computer components (the various “units” configured to perform the functional steps), which are high level recitations of generic computer component(s) or computer elements used as a tool, and represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considering the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 10 does not include significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim 10 is not patent subject matter eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-8
Regarding claims 2-8, claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites: “wherein the gap calculation unit generates a mathematical model which associates the first feature amount, the second feature amount, the first gap amount and the second gap amount, and calculates the index relating to the first gap amount based on the mathematical model”, claim 3 depends from claim 2 and further recites: “wherein the mathematical model is a probability model”, claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further recites “wherein the gap calculation unit calculates the index relating to the first gap amount based on a probability distribution relating to the probability model”, claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the feature amount calculation unit calculates the first feature amount and the second feature amount by principal component analysis”, claim 6 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the gap calculation unit divides a period of time before and after a time point when the motion trajectory changes, the measurement unit measures the drive torque or the current value using the same motion trajectory in each of the divided periods of time, and the gap calculation unit identifies an amount of change in the gap in all of the divided periods of time, and calculates the index relating to the first gap amount by adding these amounts of change”, claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further recites “further comprising a judgment unit configured to judge as abnormal the gap of the pair whose index relating to the first gap amount exceeds a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of pairs” and claim 8 depends from claim 1 and further recites “wherein the drive link and the passive links constitute at least one closed-loop link”.
These features have been considered in combination with the features required by the claim(s) from which these claims respectively depend. The bolded portion(s) of the additional feature are considered to further clarify the details of the mathematical calculations/concepts and/or the human’s mental activity, with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In addition, the gap calculation unit, feature amount calculation unit and judgment unit are mere instructions to apply an exception to a generic computer, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the “units”, as discussed above, are generic computer components, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Finally, the “measuring” is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering, which cannot provide an inventive concept, and is well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(g); See also MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”)). As previously discussed, the description of the robot (e.g., closed-loop link) is at best viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of robotics.
Therefore, these features are considered to be drawn to the abstract idea without adding significantly more, and hence claims 2-8 are considered to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by NAKAGAWA et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0247998 A1).
Regarding claim 1, NAKAGAWA discloses a gap detection device for a robot (device and method for detecting an abnormal clearance at a joint of a robot, Para. [0001] of NAKAGAWA; [Applicant’s specification (at Para. [0005] of published version) mentions the JP counterpart (JP 2019-136838 A) for NAKAGAWA as Patent Literature #3 teaching detecting the gap between the housing and the ball]), the robot comprising: a drive link configured to be driven by a motor (the robot having: a drive link driven by a motor, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA; See also Para. [0002] of NAKAGAWA); a plurality of passive links configured to be driven by a motion of the drive link (a plurality of passive links driven by a motion of the drive link, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA); and a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links (a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA), wherein the gap detection device is configured to detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the passive link (detecting an abnormal clearance between paring elements of a pair connected to a passive link of a robot, Para. [0014] of NAKAGAWA; See also Para. [0038] of NAKAGAWA where “clearance” corresponds to “air gap”), and the gap detection device comprises: a measurement unit configured to measure a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory (generate a robot motion for moving the robot along the motion path … measure a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is moved in accordance with the generated robot motion, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA; [Examiner’s Note: Para. [0057] of the published specification indicates an arbitrary motion trajectory is one that is “provided”]; See also randomly (or arbitrarily) selects the motion path, Para. [0048] of NAKAGAWA); a simulation unit configured to set an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the plurality of pairs (spherical pairs 64 and 66 … are virtually positioned, respectively, Para. [0051] of NAKAGAWA; See also in order to judge the pair having the abnormal clearance, a motion path (of a representative point of the robot) in which only the paring elements of the objective pair collide with each other or a motion path close thereto is calculated or generated by a simulation, assuming that the clearance exists between the paring elements (in this case, the ball and the housing) of the objective pair, Para. [0047] of NAKAGAWA; See also the initial action of the pair having the clearance, when the robot is moved along the selected motion path, is calculated by the simulation, Para. [0049] of NAKAGAWA: See also FIG. 7b shows a state in which there is a clearance between the pairing elements and the paring elements slide on each other, Para. [0024] of NAKAGAWA), execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along the same motion trajectory as the arbitrary motion trajectory (execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along each of predetermined plural motion paths, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA), and estimate the drive torque or the current value of the motor (although drive torque (τi) is used in equation (1), a time differential value of the drive torque may be used instead, Para. [0044] of NAKAGAWA; See also time interval may be predicted, based on the magnitude of the clearance and the acceleration when the motion of the robot is initiated, Para. [0043] of NAKAGAWA; [the time differential value of the drive torque [based on a predicted/estimated time interval] is interpreted as corresponding to an estimated drive torque]; [Additionally, the predicted/estimated time interval of the drive torque is interpreted as corresponding to an estimated/predicted current value of the motor]); a feature amount calculation unit configured to calculate a first feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the drive torque or the current value measured by the measurement unit (an index calculating section configured to calculate an index value based on a magnitude of variation of a value relating to the drive torque or the current value measured by the measuring section, Para. [0014] of NAKAGAWA) and a second feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the drive torque or the current value estimated by the simulation unit (the collision between the paring elements can be easily detected when the time differential value [i.e., second feature amount] is used, relative to when the drive torque value is used, Para. [0044] of NAKAGAWA); and a gap calculation unit configured to calculate an index relating to the first gap amount based on the first feature amount, the second feature amount and the second gap amount (an index calculating section configured to calculate an index value based on a magnitude of variation of a value relating to the drive torque [e.g., the second feature amount of the estimated time differential-based drive torque] or the current value measured by the measuring section, Para. [0014] of NAKAGAWA; See also the change in the drive torque can be detected [i.e., the first feature amount], and thus the preferable index value [i.e., the index relating to the first gap amount] for judging the presence or absence of the abnormal clearance can be obtained … the collision between the paring elements can be easily detected when the time differential value [i.e., second feature amount] is used, relative to when the drive torque value is used, Para. [0044] of NAKAGAWA).
Regarding claim 2, NAKAGAWA discloses the gap detection device according to claim 1, wherein the gap calculation unit generates a mathematical model which associates the first feature amount, the second feature amount, the first gap amount and the second gap amount, and calculates the index relating to the first gap amount based on the mathematical model (model (a) is applied to the pair to which the clearance is not provided, and model (b) is temporarily applied to the pair to which the clearance is provided … to model (a), an ideal constraint condition (ci,j,k=0) in which there is no clearance between the paring elements (ball 28 and housing 30) is applied, Para. [0050] of NAKAGAWA; See also a condition applied to model (c) is that, as the result of the simulation of the action of the pair based on the initial condition of the selected path, an inner product of pair acting force F when ball 28 is stationary with respect to housing 30 and an acceleration {umlaut over (d)} of ball 28 relative to housing 30 is lower than zero (i.e., the vectors of force F and acceleration {umlaut over (d)} constitute an obtuse angle), Para. [0052] of NAKAGAWA; See also a motion equation with respect to the position and posture of each link is solved in consideration of an input torque and a gravity force (step S4), and a condition, which each of models (b) and (c) of the pair including the clearance should satisfy, is delivered (step S5), Para. [0053] of NAKAGAWA).
Regarding claim 6, NAKAGAWA discloses the gap detection device according to claim 1, wherein the gap calculation unit divides a period of time before and after a time point when the motion trajectory changes (it is preferable that time points t0 and t1 for specifying time interval (t0, t1) be set so that the time interval includes a time point (indicated by reference numeral 58) when the drive torque is changed due to the first collision between the paring elements, Para. [0043] of NAKAGAWA; [the first collision is interpreted as changing a drive trajectory]), the measurement unit measures the drive torque or the current value using the same motion trajectory in each of the divided periods of time (FIG. 4 shows change in drive torque over the time periods t0, t1; See also measure a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is moved in accordance with the generated robot motion, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA), and the gap calculation unit identifies an amount of change in the gap in all of the divided periods of time, and calculates the index relating to the first gap amount by adding these amounts of change (the score may be calculated for or added to each of the selected motion paths, Para. [0063] of NAKAGAWA; [the [anomaly] score is related to a size of the gap/clearance and it is added together]; See also FIG. 4 is a graph showing an example of a temporal change in a measured value of a drive torque of the motor for driving the link … concretely, a graph 54 indicates a normal state in which a clearance between the paring elements (in this case, the ball and the housing) can be ignored, and a graph 56 indicates an abnormal state in which the magnitude of an (abnormal) clearance is not smaller than a certain value, Para. [0039] of NAKAGAWA).
Regarding claim 7, NAKAGAWA discloses the gap detection device according to claim 1, further comprising a judgment unit configured to judge as abnormal the gap of the pair whose index relating to the first gap amount exceeds a predetermined reference value, among the plurality of pairs (the index value (or the anomaly score) calculated based on the measured drive torque or the current value is compared to a predetermined second threshold as explained below (step S13), and when the index value exceeds the second threshold, it is judged that the objective pair includes an abnormal (or a certain size or more) clearance (steps S14 and S15), Para. [0066] of NAKAGAWA).
Regarding claim 8, NAKAGAWA discloses the gap detection device according to claim 1, wherein the drive link and the passive links constitute at least one closed-loop link (a robot at least partially having a closed-loop link mechanism, as schematically shown in FIG. 11 or 12, Para. [0072] of NAKAGAWA).
Regarding claim 9, NAKAGAWA discloses a gap detection method for a robot (device and method for detecting an abnormal clearance at a joint of a robot, Para. [0001] of NAKAGAWA; [Applicant’s specification (at Para. [0005] of published version) mentions the JP counterpart (JP 2019-136838 A) for NAKAGAWA as Patent Literature #3 teaching detecting the gap between the housing and the ball]), the robot comprising: a drive link configured to be driven by a motor (the robot having: a drive link driven by a motor, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA; See also Para. [0002] of NAKAGAWA); a plurality of passive links configured to be driven by a motion of the drive link (a plurality of passive links driven by a motion of the drive link, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA); and a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links (a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA), wherein the gap detection method is to detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the passive link ((detecting an abnormal clearance between paring elements of a pair connected to a passive link of a robot, Para. [0014] of NAKAGAWA; See also Para. [0038] of NAKAGAWA where “clearance” corresponds to “air gap”), and the gap detection method comprises the steps of: measuring a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory (generate a robot motion for moving the robot along the motion path … measure a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is moved in accordance with the generated robot motion, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA; [Examiner’s Note: Para. [0057] of the published specification indicates an arbitrary motion trajectory is one that is “provided”]; See also randomly (or arbitrarily) selects the motion path, Para. [0048] of NAKAGAWA); setting an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the plurality of pairs (spherical pairs 64 and 66 … are virtually positioned, respectively, Para. [0051] of NAKAGAWA; See also in order to judge the pair having the abnormal clearance, a motion path (of a representative point of the robot) in which only the paring elements of the objective pair collide with each other or a motion path close thereto is calculated or generated by a simulation, assuming that the clearance exists between the paring elements (in this case, the ball and the housing) of the objective pair, Para. [0047] of NAKAGAWA; See also the initial action of the pair having the clearance, when the robot is moved along the selected motion path, is calculated by the simulation, Para. [0049] of NAKAGAWA: See also FIG. 7b shows a state in which there is a clearance between the pairing elements and the paring elements slide on each other, Para. [0024] of NAKAGAWA), executing a simulation in which the robot is moved along the same motion trajectory as the arbitrary motion trajectory (execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along each of predetermined plural motion paths, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA), and estimating the drive torque or the current value of the motor (although drive torque (τi) is used in equation (1), a time differential value of the drive torque may be used instead, Para. [0044] of NAKAGAWA; See also time interval may be predicted, based on the magnitude of the clearance and the acceleration when the motion of the robot is initiated, Para. [0043] of NAKAGAWA; [the time differential value of the drive torque [based on a predicted/estimated time interval] is interpreted as corresponding to an estimated drive torque]; [Additionally, the predicted/estimated time interval of the drive torque is interpreted as corresponding to an estimated/predicted current value of the motor]); calculating a first feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the measured drive torque or the measured current value (an index calculating section configured to calculate an index value based on a magnitude of variation of a value relating to the drive torque or the current value measured by the measuring section, Para. [0014] of NAKAGAWA) and a second feature amount representing a variation in a value relating to the estimated drive torque or the estimated current value (the collision between the paring elements can be easily detected when the time differential value [i.e., second feature amount] is used, relative to when the drive torque value is used, Para. [0044] of NAKAGAWA); and calculating an index relating to the first gap amount based on the first feature amount, the second feature amount and the second gap amount ((an index calculating section configured to calculate an index value based on a magnitude of variation of a value relating to the drive torque [e.g., the second feature amount of the estimated time differential-based drive torque] or the current value measured by the measuring section, Para. [0014] of NAKAGAWA; See also the change in the drive torque can be detected [i.e., the first feature amount], and thus the preferable index value [i.e., the index relating to the first gap amount] for judging the presence or absence of the abnormal clearance can be obtained … the collision between the paring elements can be easily detected when the time differential value [i.e., second feature amount] is used, relative to when the drive torque value is used, Para. [0044] of NAKAGAWA).
Regarding claim 10, NAKAGAWA discloses a gap detection device for a robot (device and method for detecting an abnormal clearance at a joint of a robot, Para. [0001] of NAKAGAWA; [Applicant’s specification (at Para. [0005] of published version) mentions the JP counterpart (JP 2019-136838 A) for NAKAGAWA as Patent Literature #3 teaching detecting the gap between the housing and the ball]), the robot comprising: a first link configured to be driven by a motor (the robot having: a drive link driven by a motor, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA; See also Para. [0002] of NAKAGAWA); a second link configured to the first link (a plurality of passive links driven by a motion of the drive link, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA); and one or more pair connected to the second link (a plurality of pairs respectively connected to the plurality of passive links, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA), wherein the gap detection device is configured to detect a first gap amount between pairing elements of a pair connected to the second link (detecting an abnormal clearance between paring elements of a pair connected to a passive link of a robot, Para. [0014] of NAKAGAWA; See also Para. [0038] of NAKAGAWA where “clearance” corresponds to “air gap”), and the gap detection device comprises: a measurement unit configured to measure a first output value of the motor when the robot is actually moved along an arbitrary motion trajectory (generate a robot motion for moving the robot along the motion path … measure a drive torque or a current value of the motor when the robot is moved in accordance with the generated robot motion, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA; [Examiner’s Note: Para. [0057] of the published specification indicates an arbitrary motion trajectory is one that is “provided”]; See also randomly (or arbitrarily) selects the motion path, Para. [0048] of NAKAGAWA); a simulation unit configured to set an arbitrary second gap amount between pairing elements of the pair (spherical pairs 64 and 66 … are virtually positioned, respectively, Para. [0051] of NAKAGAWA; See also in order to judge the pair having the abnormal clearance, a motion path (of a representative point of the robot) in which only the paring elements of the objective pair collide with each other or a motion path close thereto is calculated or generated by a simulation, assuming that the clearance exists between the paring elements (in this case, the ball and the housing) of the objective pair, Para. [0047] of NAKAGAWA; See also the initial action of the pair having the clearance, when the robot is moved along the selected motion path, is calculated by the simulation, Para. [0049] of NAKAGAWA: See also FIG. 7b shows a state in which there is a clearance between the pairing elements and the paring elements slide on each other, Para. [0024] of NAKAGAWA), execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along the motion trajectory (execute a simulation in which the robot is moved along each of predetermined plural motion paths, Para. [0013] of NAKAGAWA), and estimate a second output value of the motor (although drive torque (τi) is used in equation (1), a time differential value of the drive torque may be used instead, Para. [0044] of NAKAGAWA; See also time interval may be predicted, based on the magnitude of the clearance and the acceleration when the motion of the robot is initiated, Para. [0043] of NAKAGAWA; [the time differential value of the drive torque [based on a predicted/estimated time interval] is interpreted as corresponding to an estimated drive torque]; [Additionally, the predicted/estimated time interval of the drive torque is interpreted as corresponding to an estimated/predicted current value of the motor]); and a gap calculation unit configured to calculate the first gap amount based on a change in the first output value, a change in the second output value and the second gap amount (an index calculating section configured to calculate an index value based on a magnitude of variation of a value relating to the drive torque or the current value measured by the measuring section, Para. [0014] of NAKAGAWA; See also the change in the drive torque can be detected, and thus the preferable index value for judging the presence or absence of the abnormal clearance can be obtained … the collision between the paring elements can be easily detected when the time differential value is used, relative to when the drive torque value is used, Para. [0044] of NAKAGAWA).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over NAKAGAWA et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0247998 A1) in view of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0089040 A1).
Regarding claim 3, NAKAGAWA discloses the gap detection device according to claim 2 (as shown above) but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the mathematical model is a probability model.
EBRAHIMI AFROUZI, however, is in the field of autonomous robots (Para. [0003] of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI) and teaches wherein the mathematical model is a probability model (processor may model uncertainty associated with each measurement with two random variables … each random variable may be subject to a Gaussian probability, Para. [0347] of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the gap detection modeling of NAKAGAWA with the probability modeling of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI for the purpose of constructing the environment of the robot having a noisy sensor environment (Para. [0347] of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI).
Regarding claim 4, NAKAGAWA as modified by EBRAHIMI AFROUZI discloses the gap detection device according to claim 3 (as shown above), wherein the gap calculation unit calculates the index relating to the first gap amount based on a probability distribution relating to the probability model (the processor of the robot may determine a phase space probability distribution over all possible states of the robot within the phase space using a statistical ensemble including a large collection of virtual, independent copies of the robot in various states of the phase space … the phase space may consist of all possible values of position and momentum variables, Para. [0437] of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI).
Regarding claim 5, NAKAGAWA discloses the gap detection device according to claim 1 (as shown above) but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the feature amount calculation unit calculates the first feature amount and the second feature amount by principal component analysis.
EBRAHIMI AFROUZI, however, is in the field of autonomous robots (Para. [0003] of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI) and teaches wherein the feature amount calculation unit calculates the first feature amount and the second feature amount by principal component analysis (principal component analysis may be used … singular value decomposition may be used to find principal components, Para. [0322] of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the gap detection modeling based on features of NAKAGAWA with the principal component analysis of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI for the purpose of reducing the dimensionality of an image as the number of pixels increases with resolution (Para. [0322] of EBRAHIMI AFROUZI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P HOCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached on (571)272-3676. 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.
JOHN P. HOCKER
Examiner
Art Unit 2189
/JOHN P HOCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights