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 .
This office acti/on is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and amendments filed on 07/16/2026. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. No Claims have been cancelled. No Claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims are 1-20 currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the applicant claims “strengths and weaknesses of at least one human”. Paragraph 0076 recites the terms in the same way recited in the claims without defining what those strengths and weaknesses are or how they are defined. Accordingly, “strengths and weaknesses” vary from one human to another and the specification lacks any support or description to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor what said terms are.
Claims 2-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, the applicant claims “learn respective strengths and weaknesses of at least one human and at least one AMR for performance of the at least one task based on the AMR performance data and human performance data”. It is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Neither the claim nor the specification does recite or specify any analytic criterion, threshold or rule, nor any technical means by which the learning is performed. Accordingly, said learning is subjective. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner best knowledge, said limitation will be treated as being part of the analyzing step without giving it any patentable weight.
With respect to claim 1 and 11, the applicant claims “strengths and weaknesses of at least one human”. Strengths and weaknesses are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms strengths and weaknesses are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraph 0076 recites the terms in the same way recited in the claims without defining what those strengths and weaknesses are or how they are defined, i.e. these terms are recited without a metric, without a baseline of comparison, and without measurement conditions. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 11 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-20 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(s) collecting autonomous mobile robots data and human performance data while performing at least one task, analyzing the data, learn respective weaknesses and strengths, determine optimization of the at least one task based on the analysis and adjusting a human function or an AMR function related to the task if the task is not optimized to optimize said task.
The analyzing, learning, determining, and adjusting steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more processors” language, “analyzing, determining, and adjusting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing said steps using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element, one or more processors to perform the analyzing step. The one or more processors is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of analyzing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations of “a communications module and collecting data”, the examiner submits that these limitation are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a processor to perform the process. In particular, the collecting step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering robots and devices data for use in the analyzing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “robots and devices” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose technical environment. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors to perform the analyzing step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of collecting data and communications module are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background and the recited references teach said limitation. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-10, and 12-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al US 2022/0306152 A1 (hence Zhang).
In re claims 1 and 11, Zhang discloses a system which enables interaction between task and motion planners (Abstract) and teaches the following:
one or more processors and data storage devices; a communications module configured to exchange electronic information with one or more autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) and one or more electronic human devices (Paragraphs 0142 and 0158);
and a hybrid autonomous system and human integration program code comprising at least one processor and at least one computer memory that that, when executed, is configured to: collect AMR performance data and human performance data, including data from at least one of the AMRs and data received from at least one of the human devices generated while performing at least one task, each task including one or more human functions and one or more AMR functions (Fig.4A-4D, and Paragraphs 0260 and 0262);
and using the at least one processor and the at least one computer memory, analyze, in real or near real time, the AMR performance data and human performance data, learn respective strengths and weaknesses of at least one human and the at least one AMR for performance of the at least one task based on the AMR performance data and human performance data (Paragraph 0189, and Paragraphs 0249-0250), determine optimization of the at least one task based on the analysis and the learned respective strengths and weaknesses (Paragraphs 0129, and 0250), and if the at least one task is not optimized, adjust at least one human function and/or at least one AMR function related to the at least one task based on the analysis to optimize the at least one task (Paragraphs 0139 and 0250)
In re claims 3 and 13, Zhang teaches the following:
wherein the human performance data is collected and/or transmitted by the at least one human device during human interaction with the at least one AMR while performing the at least one task (Paragraph 0009)
In re claims 4 and 14 Zhang teaches the following:
wherein the at least one AMR is configured to transmit at least a portion of the AMR performance data in real time during AMR performance of the at least one AMR function related to the at least one task (Paragraph 0047)
In re claims 5 and 15, Zhang teaches the following:
wherein the AMR performance data is collected and/or transmitted by the at least one AMR during AMR interaction with the at least one human while performing the at least one task (Paragraph 0126)
In re claims 6 and 16, Zhang teaches the following:
adjust the at least one human function and/or the at least one AMR function to improve efficiency related to performance of the at least one task and/or one or more AMR functions and/or human functions necessary to complete the at least one task (Abstract)
In re claims 7 and 17, Zhang teaches the following:
improve a throughput, reduce a travel distance, reduce a travel time, and/or reduce resources of the at least one AMR and/or the at least one human required to complete the at least one task, the one or more AMR functions, and/or the one or more human functions (Paragraph 0188)
In re claims 8 and 18, Zhang teaches the following:
adjust the at least one human function and/or the at least one AMR function related to the at least one task in real or near real time (Paragraph 0015)
In re claims 9 and 19, Zhang teaches the following:
adjust route planning for at least one of the human and/or the at least one AMR (Paragraph 0140)
In re claims 10 and 20, Zhang teaches the following:
reassign tasks, AMR functions, and/or human functions to at least one other human and/or at least one other AMR (Paragraph 0140)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Phee et al US 2012/0078053 A1 (hence Phee).
In re claims 2 and 12, Zhang discloses the claimed invention as recited above with respect to claims 2 and 12, but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein the one or more electronic human devices includes a handheld or wearable device configured to transmit at least a portion of the human performance data in real time during human performance of the at least one human function related to the at least one task
Nevertheless, Phee discloses a robotic system for flexible endoscopy and in particular but not exclusively to robotic manipulators, controllers, systems, methods and uses thereof for performing surgery (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein the one or more electronic human devices includes a handheld or wearable device configured to transmit at least a portion of the human performance data in real time during human performance of the at least one human function related to the at least one task (Paragraphs 0039-0042)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the reference to include detecting a human performance of a human function of a device, as taught by Phee, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for a human motion tracker of said device (Phee, Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the recited claims do not recite a mental process because they do not cover merely observing a worker or a robot for forming a subjective opinion, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., navigation data and completion, location, and progress along a route etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the analyzing, learning, determining, and adjusting steps, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the claimed limitations implement the abstract idea into a practical application which is “learn respective strengths and weaknesses of at least one human and the at least one AMR for performance of the at least one task based on the AMR performance data and human performance data, determine optimization of the at least one task based on the analysis and the learned respective strengths and weaknesses, and, if the at least one task is not optimized, adjust at least one human function and/or at least one AMR function related to the at least one task to optimize the at least one task”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As discussed above, the recited limitation is part of the mental process because the recited steps be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The examiner later examined the claims to determine whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and evaluated those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. As recited above in the 101 rejection, the additional elements, taken alone or as an ordered combination or as a whole, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not eligible.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and that the claimed limitations provide a technical improvement to the technical field, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The claims are not directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, rather than an abstract idea implemented on a computer. With respect to the recited limitation “learn respective strengths and weaknesses of at least one human and at least one AMR for performance of the at least one task based on the AMR performance data and human performance data”, neither the claim nor the specification does recite or specify any analytic criterion, threshold or rule, nor any technical means by which the learning is performed. Accordingly, it is not clear to the examiner what technical improvement to the technical field said limitation provides. While the claimed system and method take advantage of the capabilities of a computer to process data, the recited steps do not provide any meaningful improvements to how said computers operate or function. In another way, it is this incorporation of a computer, not the claimed rule, that purportedly improves the existing technological process by allowing the automation of further tasks. Accordingly, the claims are not eligible.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang and that Zhang does not teach or suggest the amended limitation “learn respective strengths and weaknesses of at least one human and at least one AMR for performance of the at least one task based on the AMR performance data and human performance data”, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. First, it is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Neither the claim nor the specification does recite or specify any analytic criterion, threshold or rule, nor any technical means by which the learning is performed. According to the examiner best knowledge, said limitation will be treated as being part of the analyzing step without giving it any patentable weight.
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that Zhang fails to disclose collecting human performance data, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. The BRI of human functions and human performance data is a pedestrian. The claim doesn’t require any specific definition for said limitation and Zhang discloses “The perception system may detect and/or track objects (e.g., vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and/or the like) that are proximate to (e.g., in proximity to the surrounding environment of) the AV over a time period” in at least Paragraph 0144. The perception system is the human device that collects data about the human. Accordingly, Zhang discloses the limitations "human performance data . . . received from at least one of the human devices generated while performing at least one task including one or more human functions."
With respect to applicant’s arguments/remarks that Zhang does not disclose "learning respective strengths and weaknesses of the at least one human based on . . .human performance data . . .for performance of the at least one task based on the . . . human performance data," and optimization based on the learned strengths and weaknesses as claimed in Claims 1 and 11, the examiner respectfully disagrees with that statement. As recited above, it is not clear to the examiner what the applicant is trying to convey with said limitation. Neither the claim nor the specification does recite or specify any analytic criterion, threshold or rule, nor any technical means by which the learning is performed. According to the examiner best knowledge, said limitation will be treated as being part of the analyzing step without giving it any patentable weight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights