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 .
Applicant’s amendments dated 9/17/26 are hereby entered.
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 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 16-19 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process that can be performed by a human being.
In regard to Claims 16 and 18-19, the following limitations can be performed as a mental process by a human being in terms of claiming collecting data, analyzing that data, and providing outputs based on that analysis which has been held by the CAFC to be an abstract idea in decisions such as, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician v Ubisoft (non-precedential); in terms of the Applicant claiming:
[a]n action control method […] the action control method comprising […]:
acquiring [data regarding] an external stimulus applied [by] a subject;
calculating a touch characteristic parameter or a voice characteristic parameter of the [data regarding the] acquired external stimulus;
storing the calculated touch characteristic parameter or the calculated voice characteristic parameter […] as a stored parameter on a first-in first-out basis;
calculating, for each of stored parameters of a plurality of the stored parameters previously stored, a similarity between the stored parameter and the calculated touch characteristic parameter or the calculated voice characteristic parameter that is a current characteristic parameter, the stored parameters being stored as a more recent history […];
counting, as a counter variable for counting, a number of stored parameters, among the stored parameters stored in the history buffer, that are each larger than or equal to a predetermined threshold in the corresponding calculated similarity;
determining, based on a comparison between a ratio of the counted counter variable to a total number of the stored parameters stored in the history buffer and a predetermined threshold, an intimacy [felt by] the subject applying the external stimulus […];
selecting, in accordance with the determined intimacy, as an action mode […] a normal action mode or an intimate action mode different from the normal action mode;
in response to selecting the intimate action mode, setting a duration of the intimate action mode such that a longer duration is set when a level of the determined intimacy is higher with respect to the multiple levels of the intimacy that are set in advance; and
[…] execut[ing] an action in the intimate action mode by a time length of the set duration and transition to the normal action mode upon elapse of the set duration,
wherein the similarity is determined at a plurality of mutually different similarity levels, and
wherein the action control method further comprises […]:
for each of the plurality of similarity levels, (i) counting a number of voice histories corresponding to the similarity level, and (ii) calculating a ratio of the number of voice histories corresponding to the similarity level to a total number of voice histories previously stored,
in response to the ratio calculated for a similarity level of the plurality of similarity levels exceeding a threshold corresponding to the similarity level, outputting a determination value corresponding to the similarity level, the determination value being different depending on the similarity level for which the ratio exceeds the threshold, and
selecting the normal action mode or the intimate action mode in accordance with the determination value, and in response to selecting the intimate action mode, setting a duration of the intimate action mode in accordance with the determination value.
In regard to the dependent claims, they also claim an abstract idea to the extent that they merely claim further limitations that likewise could be performed as a mental process by a human being.
Furthermore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because to the extent that additional elements are claimed either alone or in combination such as, e.g., a pet robot comprising a processor, a sensor, a twist motor, a vertical motor, a memory; and/or embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering), to embody the abstract idea on a general purpose computer, and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In this regard, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) in regard to “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application…”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that taken individually, and also taken as an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g., a pet robot comprising a processor, a sensor, a twist motor, a vertical motor, a memory; and/or embodying Applicant’s abstract idea as computer code, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements and are claimed for the well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of collecting and processing data and/or providing an analysis/outputs based on that processing. To the extent that an apparatus is claimed as an additional element said apparatus fails to qualify as a “particular machine” to the extent that it is claimed generally, merely implements the steps of Applicant’s claimed method, and is claimed merely for purposes of extra-solution activity or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(b). As evidence that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional, Applicant’s specification discloses the support for these elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See, e.g., F1-2 in Applicant’s specification and text regarding same; see also, e.g., p31 specifically regarding the claimed twist and vertical motors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 12 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image1.png
272
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as, unlike as in Example 20, Applicant’s invention makes no improvement to its claimed motor but, instead, merely embodies its invention by employing well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. In this aspect, Applicant’s claimed motors are no different from the electro-mechanical device held to not add “significantly more” by the CAFC in Ficep v. Peddinghaus (2022-1590; 8/21/23).
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image2.png
132
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
154
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Merely performing an output that involves “physical control” of a device does not necessarily claim “significantly more” in regard to the Mayo test. See, e.g., the physical computer displays claimed in Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and Yousician (non-precedential). See also, e.g., the manufacturing machine held by the CAFC to not render “significantly more” in Ficep v. Peddinghaus (2022-1590; 8/21/23).
Applicant argues on page 13 of its Remarks in regard to the rejections made under 35 USC 101:
PNG
media_image4.png
192
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as Applicant cites no legal authority in support of its position that by allegedly achieving “a more lifelike action by the robot” that it has, thereby, claimed patent eligible subject matter. To the contrary, to the extent that Applicant claims employing, e.g., certain motors as part of its invention, there is no improvement achieved to these motors qua motors. In other words, Applicant’s claimed motors are not able to, e.g., move faster or more precisely, use less power, and/or be manufactured more cheaply as a result of embodying Applicant’s invention. Instead, Applicant’s claimed motors are merely employed to provide what every motor provides, namely, movement.
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 extension fee 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 Mike Grant whose telephone number is 571-270-1545. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except on the first Friday of each bi-week.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's Supervisory Primary Examiner, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL C GRANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights