*1DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This non-final office action is in response to the Amendments filed on 24 February 2026, regarding application number 18/527,715.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 March 2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 10 and 19 were amended in the Amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 6-13, filed 24 February 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See full details below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 19
Claim 1 recites a system, comprising:
a material flow management system comprising a processor configured to:
accept from a user one or more robotic material flow job configuration details;
translate the one or more job configuration details into one or more plain language summaries that echo the user's selected job configuration details,
wherein the plain language summaries comprise one or more sentences approximating natural language that describe the job configuration for presentation to a human operator for confirmation; and
provide the one or more plain language summaries of job configuration details to a user via a display.
Claim 10 recites a method, comprising:
a material flow management system comprising a processor:
accepting from a user one or more robotic material flow job configuration details;
translating the one or more job configuration details into one or more plain language summaries that echo the user's selected job configuration details,
wherein the plain language summaries comprise one or more sentences approximating natural language that describe the job configuration for presentation to a human operator for confirmation; and
providing the one or more plain language summaries of job configuration details to a user via a display.
Claim 19 recites a robotic materials flow system, comprising:
an AMR;
a processor configured to:
accept from a user one or more robotic material flow job configuration details;
translate the one or more job configuration details into one or more plain language summaries that echo the user's selected job configuration details,
wherein the plain language summaries comprise one or more sentences approximating natural language that describe the job configuration for presentation to a human operator for confirmation; and
provide the one or more plain language summaries of job configuration details to a user via a display.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
Claims 1 and 19 recite at least a processor. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a manufacture/machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Claim 10 recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories because the claim is to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
The claims recite the limitations of “translate the one or more job configuration details into one or more plain language summaries that echo the user's selected job configuration details” and “wherein the plain language summaries comprise one or more sentences approximating natural language that describe the job configuration for presentation to a human operator for confirmation;”. These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer component “processor”. That is, other than reciting the “processor”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic computer language, the claim encompasses a person viewing one or more robotic flow job configuration details, such as a variety of tasks assigned to robots and workers in a manufacturing environment. The person can then translate the one or more job configuration details into plain language summaries including natural language sentences that describe the job configuration. For example, the person could be a manager who speaks to their workers in plain language to allocate the tasks. The mere nominal recitation of the processors does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite an additional element “processor” and claim 19 recites and additional element “AMR”.
In claims 1, 10 and 19, the “processor” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it is described at high level of generality and is merely a computer component being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
In claim 19, the recitation of an “AMR” amounts to mere indication of a field of use or technological environment. It does not amount to significantly more than the abstraction exception itself and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment such as an AMR, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
The claims recite additional steps of “accept from a user one or more robotic material flow job configuration details;” and “provide the one or more plain language summaries of job configuration details to a user via a display.”.
The “accept…” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering input data for use in the mental “translate” step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “provide…” step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the plain language summaries from the mental “translate” step), and amounts to mere potential of outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, for the additional elements in the claim in which the “processor” is merely a tool being used to perform the abstract idea, the same analysis applies here as above. Merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the processor is a conventional CPU, and does not provide any indication that it is anything other than a conventional computer component. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are not patent eligible.
Dependents
Regarding Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20
Claim 2 recites the system of claim 1,
wherein the system is configured to provide the one or more plain language summaries to a user through a graphical user interface.
Claim 11 recites the method of claim 10,
wherein system provides the one or more plain language summaries to a user through a graphical user interface.
Claim 3 recites the system of claim 2,
wherein the system is configured to prompt a user to accept or reject job configuration details in response to the presentation of a plain language summary of the job configuration details.
Claim 12 recites the method of claim 11,
wherein the system prompts a user to accept or reject job configuration details in response to the presentation of a plain language summary of the job configuration details.
Claim 4 recites the system of claim 3,
wherein the system is configured to respond to the acceptance of job configuration details by storing the job configuration details as a template for a robotic material flow job.
Claim 13 recites the method of claim 12,
wherein the system responds to the acceptance of job configuration details by storing the job configuration details as a template for a robotic material flow job.
Claim 20 recites the system of claim 19,
wherein the processor is configured to prompt the user to accept or reject the job configuration details based on the plain language summaries and to store the job configuration details as a template in response to user acceptance of the details.
Claim 5 recites the system of claim 4,
wherein the system is configured to prompt an input of job configuration details, including a trigger and a step, for the robotic material flow job configuration.
Claim 14 recites the method of claim 13,
wherein the system prompts an input of job configuration details, including a trigger and a step, for the robotic material flow job configuration.
Claim 6 recites the system of claim 5,
wherein the system is configured to present the stored template to a user when a job is called and is responsive to user input regarding job configuration specifications to provide an instance of the job.
Claim 15 recites the method of claim 14,
wherein the system presents the stored template to a user when a job is called and is responsive to user input regarding job configuration specifications to provide an instance of the job.
Claim 7 recites the system of claim 6,
wherein the system is configured to accept location-specific input in the form of a direct location within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Claim 16 recites the method of claim 15,
wherein the system accepts location-specific input in the form of a direct location within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Claim 8 recites the system of claim 6,
wherein the system is configured to accept location-specific input in the form of a group of locations within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Claim 17 recites the method of claim 15,
wherein the system accepts location-specific input in the form of a group of locations within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Claim 9 recites the system of claim 6,
wherein the system is configured to accept input in the form of a group of robots within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Claim 18 recites the method of claim 15,
wherein the system accepts input in the form of a group of robots within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Claim analysis via 2019 PEG
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
Independent claims 1 and 19 recite at least a processor. Thus, their dependent claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a manufacture/machine. See MPEP 2106.03.
Independent claim 10 recites a method including at least one step. Thus, their dependent claims fall within one of the four statutory categories because the claims are to a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong One Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
Claims are to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20, independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recite the mental “translate…” step, as discussed above. Thus, claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 recite a mental process. The claims do not recite any additional mental steps.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claims are evaluated whether as a whole they integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claims 4, 7-9, 13, 16-18 and 20 recite additional steps of:
“wherein the system is configured to respond to the acceptance of job configuration details by storing the job configuration details as a template for a robotic material flow job.”
“wherein the system is configured to accept location-specific input in the form of a direct location within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.”
“wherein the system is configured to accept location-specific input in the form of a group of locations within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.”
“wherein the system is configured to accept input in the form of a group of robots within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.”
The above steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data associated with the mental “translate” step) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 11-12 and 14-15 recite additional steps of:
“wherein the system is configured to provide the one or more plain language summaries to a user through a graphical user interface.”
“wherein the system is configured to prompt a user to accept or reject job configuration details in response to the presentation of a plain language summary of the job configuration details.”
“wherein the system is configured to prompt an input of job configuration details, including a trigger and a step, for the robotic material flow job configuration.”
“wherein the system is configured to present the stored template to a user when a job is called and is responsive to user input regarding job configuration specifications to provide an instance of the job.”
The displaying steps are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying data associated with the mental “translate” step), and amounts to mere potential of outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim(s) is evaluated whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering and displaying steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that the processor is a conventional CPU, and does not provide any indication that it is anything other than a conventional computer component. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 10-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima et al. (US 20090254216 A1 and Matsushima hereinafter), in view of Sano et al. (US 20250100138 A1 and Sano hereinafter).
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 19
Regarding claim 1, Matsushima teaches a system (see all Figs, especially Fig. 12; [0001] and [0005]), comprising:
a material flow management system comprising a processor (see Fig. 4, all, especially external terminal 90; [0055 "The external terminal 90 comprises a personal computer equipped with a keyboard (numeric keypad) 110 provided to be freely operable by the operator, a display 112 of a touch panel type and a mouse 114"]) configured to:
accept from a user one or more robotic material flow job configuration details (see Fig. 4, keyboard 110 and/or display 112; Fig. 11, step S10; Fig. 12, input boxes 132a-132c; [0005 "...inputting means provided to be manipulated by an operator for inputting at least one of the desired position and orientation of the robot at a time when the robot reaches the desired position..."], [0055], [0086 "First, in S10 (image generator 116), it is determined whether at least one of the desired position and orientation of the robot 10 is inputted by numeric values through the keyboard 110."] and [0100]-[0104], especially [0101 "For instance, when 1 [m], 2 [m] and 45 [deg] are inputted in the first to third input boxes 132 a, 132 b, 132 c, text as “it moves one meter forward and two meters left, and the orientation there is counterclockwise by 45 degrees” is displayed in the image 170."]);
translate the one or more job configuration details into one or more plain language summaries that echo the user's selected job configuration details (see Fig. 4, image generator 116; Fig. 11, step S12; Fig. 12, image 170; [0005 "...displaying means for displaying an image indicative of the inputted desired position and orientation on a display; ... the displaying means displays a first image indicative of the inputted desired position and orientation by numeric values or language including at least the numeric values..."], [0056 "The image generator 116 produces an image based on the desired position and orientation inputted through the keyboard 110, display 112 and mouse 114, and displays (outputs) the image on the display 112."], [0086 "First, in S10 (image generator 116), it is determined whether at least one of the desired position and orientation of the robot 10 is inputted by numeric values through the keyboard 110. When the result in S10 is Yes, the program proceeds to S12 (image generator 116), in which based on (in response to) the inputted values, the directions and lengths of the graphics ( arrows 134 b, 134 c) are changed."] and [0100]-[0104], especially [0101 "The image 170 is displayed in the image 134. The image 170 comprises an outer frame representing a word balloon pulled from the appearance view 134 a of the robot and text in the outer frame. The text is constituted of the numeric values in the image 132 and language combined therewith to express the desired position and orientation of the robot 10. For instance, when 1 [m], 2 [m] and 45 [deg] are inputted in the first to third input boxes 132 a, 132 b, 132 c, text as “it moves one meter forward and two meters left, and the orientation there is counterclockwise by 45 degrees” is displayed in the image 170. Similar to the numeric values in the image 132, the numeric values in the image 170 are changed based on (in response to) the desired position and orientation inputted using the graphics."]),
wherein the plain language summaries comprise one or more sentences approximating natural language that describe the job configuration for presentation to a human operator for confirmation (see Fig. 4, display 112; Fig. 12, image 170; [0005 "...the displaying means displays a first image indicative of the inputted desired position and orientation by numeric values or language including at least the numeric values..."], [0076 "When the operator clicks the motion start button 136, the motion command generated by the motion command generator 146 is forwarded to the input discriminator 150."]-[0078] and [0100]-[0104], especially [0101 "The text is constituted of the numeric values in the image 132 and language combined therewith to express the desired position and orientation of the robot 10. For instance, when 1 [m], 2 [m] and 45 [deg] are inputted in the first to third input boxes 132 a, 132 b, 132 c, text as “it moves one meter forward and two meters left, and the orientation there is counterclockwise by 45 degrees” is displayed in the image 170."]); and
provide the one or more plain language summaries of job configuration details to a user via a display (see Fig. 4, display 112; Fig. 12, image 170; [0005 "...displaying means for displaying an image indicative of the inputted desired position and orientation on a display; ... the displaying means displays a first image indicative of the inputted desired position and orientation by numeric values or language including at least the numeric values..."], [0056] [0091] and [0100]-[0104], especially [0101 "For instance, when 1 [m], 2 [m] and 45 [deg] are inputted in the first to third input boxes 132 a, 132 b, 132 c, text as “it moves one meter forward and two meters left, and the orientation there is counterclockwise by 45 degrees” is displayed in the image 170."]).
Regarding claim 10, Matsushima additionally teaches a method (see all Figs, especially Fig. 11; [0005]), comprising the above steps (as discussed above).
Regarding claim 19, Matsushima additionally teaches a robotic materials flow system (see all Figs., especially Fig. 12; [0001] and [0005]), comprising:
an AMR (see Figs. 1-4, robot 10; [0005] and [0032 "FIG. 1 is a front view of a mobile robot to which a mobile robot control system according to a first embodiment of the invention is applied and FIG. 2 is a side view of the robot shown in FIG. 1."]);
a processor (see Fig. 4, all, especially external terminal 90; [0055 "The external terminal 90 comprises a personal computer equipped with a keyboard (numeric keypad) 110 provided to be freely operable by the operator, a display 112 of a touch panel type and a mouse 114"]) configured to perform the above steps (as discussed above).
Matsushima teaches each and every element of the claim(s), as discussed above. For the sake of compact prosecution and for the possible argument of "Matsushima is silent regarding a material flow management system and one or more robotic material flow job configuration details", Sano teaches the claim elements.
That is, Sano teaches a system (see all Figs.; [0002] and [0008]), comprising:
a material flow management system comprising a processor (see Figs. 2-6, all; [0037]-[0039], [0055 "A wide pickup icon 311 that instructs pickup of a workpiece"]-[0057 "A hand close icon 312 for closing a hand and holding a workpiece"] and [0069]) configured to:
accept from a user one or more robotic material flow job configuration details (see Fig. 4, all; [0050 "The user carries out programming by selecting a desired icon from the icon display region 200 and arranging the icon in the program display region 300 by, for example, a drag-and-drop operation. In the example in FIG. 4 , in the program display region 300, the hand close icon 201, the arc movement icon 204, two linear movement icons 203, and the hand open icon 202 are arranged in order."] and [0066 "The user inserts the annotation command icon 401 between the pickup icon 311 and the hand close icon 312 in order to provide an annotation to a portion related to the workpiece pickup motion attained by the pickup icon 311 and the hand close icon 312."]);
translate the one or more job configuration details into one or more plain language summaries that echo the user's selected job configuration details (see Figs. 5-6, "annotations"; [0044 "The annotation setting unit 132 receives a setting input of an annotation for an icon arranged in a region (hereinafter, the region is also referred to as a program display region) for creating and displaying a program by arranging a command (such as an icon and a command sentence) on a program creation screen."]-[0045], [0066 "The user inserts the annotation command icon 401 between the pickup icon 311 and the hand close icon 312 in order to provide an annotation to a portion related to the workpiece pickup motion attained by the pickup icon 311 and the hand close icon 312."]-[0067 "Pickup workpiece A” is specified as an annotation sentence for the annotation command icon 401."] and [0076]),
wherein the plain language summaries comprise one or more sentences approximating natural language that describe the job configuration for presentation to a human operator for confirmation (see Figs. 5-6, "annotations"; [0067 "Pickup workpiece A” is specified as an annotation sentence for the annotation command icon 401. In the program display region 300, the annotation “pickup workpiece A” (annotation 401 a) set for the annotation command icon 401 is displayed in a flag form.."] and [0076]); and
provide the one or more plain language summaries of job configuration details to a user via a display (see Figs. 5-6, "annotations"; [0066]-[0067 "In the program display region 300, the annotation “pickup workpiece A” (annotation 401 a) set for the annotation command icon 401 is displayed in a flag form."] and [0076 "FIG. 6 illustrates, as a reference example, a display example of an annotation in the program display region 300 when an annotation is long and the number of annotations is great."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system/process of Matsushima to include a material flow management system for accepting one or more robotic material flow job configuration details, as taught by Sano, in order to enable the system to perform picking, palletizing and precision fitting of workpieces.
Regarding Claims 2 and 11
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 10 (as discussed above in claims 1 and 10),
Matsushima further teaches wherein the system is configured to provide the one or more plain language summaries to a user through a graphical user interface (see Fig. 4, display 112; Fig. 12, image 170; [0005 "...displaying means for displaying an image indicative of the inputted desired position and orientation on a display; ... the displaying means displays a first image indicative of the inputted desired position and orientation by numeric values or language including at least the numeric values..."], [0056] [0091] and [0100]-[0104], especially [0101 "For instance, when 1 [m], 2 [m] and 45 [deg] are inputted in the first to third input boxes 132 a, 132 b, 132 c, text as “it moves one meter forward and two meters left, and the orientation there is counterclockwise by 45 degrees” is displayed in the image 170."]).
Sano additionally teaches wherein the system is configured to provide the one or more plain language summaries to a user through a graphical user interface (see Figs. 5-6, "annotations"; [0066]-[0067 "In the program display region 300, the annotation “pickup workpiece A” (annotation 401 a) set for the annotation command icon 401 is displayed in a flag form."] and [0076 "FIG. 6 illustrates, as a reference example, a display example of an annotation in the program display region 300 when an annotation is long and the number of annotations is great."]).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 2 and method of claim 11 (as discussed above in claims 2 and 11),
Matsushima further teaches wherein the system is configured to prompt a user to accept or reject job configuration details in response to the presentation of a plain language summary of the job configuration details (see Fig. 4, display 112; Fig. 12, image 170 and motion start 136; [0076 "When the operator clicks the motion start button 136, the motion command generated by the motion command generator 146 is forwarded to the input discriminator 150."]-[0078] and [0100]-[0104], especially [0101 "The text is constituted of the numeric values in the image 132 and language combined therewith to express the desired position and orientation of the robot 10. For instance, when 1 [m], 2 [m] and 45 [deg] are inputted in the first to third input boxes 132 a, 132 b, 132 c, text as “it moves one meter forward and two meters left, and the orientation there is counterclockwise by 45 degrees” is displayed in the image 170. Similar to the numeric values in the image 132, the numeric values in the image 170 are changed based on (in response to) the desired position and orientation inputted using the graphics."]).
Claims 4-9, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushima (as modified by Sano) as applied to claims 3, 12 and 19 above, and further in view of Schneider et al. (US 20210373558 A1 and Schneider hereinafter).
Regarding Claims 4 and 13
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 3 and method of claim 12 (as discussed above in claims 3 and 12),
Matsushima is silent regarding wherein the system is configured to respond to the acceptance of job configuration details by storing the job configuration details as a template for a robotic material flow job.
Schneider teaches a system (see all Figs.; [0001] and [0004]), comprising:
a material flow management system comprising a processor (see Fig. 3, all, especially processor 324; [0004] and [0093]) configured to:
accept from a user one or more robotic material flow job configuration details (see Figs. 6B-6E, all; [0004 "A user may use the mobile application to manage (e.g., add or remove) one or more mobile robots such as in the user's home, and monitor the operating status of a mobile robot. Additionally, the user may use the mobile application to create and maintain a personalized mission routine"] and [0138]-[0144]);
translate the one or more job configuration details into one or more summaries of the job configuration details (see Fig. 6A, "Quick Clean Vacuum 22 min" and/or "Deep Clean Vacuum 45 min"; [0119 " For a mobile cleaning robot, examples of a personalized cleaning mode may include a “standard clean”, a “deep clean”, a “quick clean”, a “spot clean”, or an “edge and corner clean”. Each of these mission routines defines respective rooms or floor surface areas to be cleaned and an associated cleaning pattern. For example, a standard clean routine may include a broader range of areas in the user's home environment, such as all the rooms, than a quick clean routine."] and [0137 " For example, a context-based cleaning mission may refer to rooms or floor surface areas with reference to a furniture or a furnishing, such as “under the living room couch”, “under the dining table”, “along the kickboard in the kitchen”, “near the kitchen stove”, or “the cabinets area of the kitchen sink”."]),
wherein the summaries describe the job configuration for presentation to a human operator for confirmation (see Fig. 6A, "Quick Clean Vacuum 22 min" and/or "Deep Clean Vacuum 45 min"; Fig. 6C, "New Favorite"; Fig. 6D, "Save"; Fig. 6E, "Save and Schedule" [0119 " For a mobile cleaning robot, examples of a personalized cleaning mode may include a “standard clean”, a “deep clean”, a “quick clean”, a “spot clean”, or an “edge and corner clean”. Each of these mission routines defines respective rooms or floor surface areas to be cleaned and an associated cleaning pattern. For example, a standard clean routine may include a broader range of areas in the user's home environment, such as all the rooms, than a quick clean routine."] and [0137 " For example, a context-based cleaning mission may refer to rooms or floor surface areas with reference to a furniture or a furnishing, such as “under the living room couch”, “under the dining table”, “along the kickboard in the kitchen”, “near the kitchen stove”, or “the cabinets area of the kitchen sink”."]); and
provide the one or more summaries of job configuration details to a user via a display (see Fig 6A, all, especially Favorites 630; Fig 6F, all, especially 681; [0004 "The mission routine may be represented by an editable schedule, including time and/or order, for performing one or more tasks, such as cleaning one or more rooms or floor surface areas of the user's home ... The mobile application may display, such as on the handheld device, information about the mission routine, and allow a user to monitor the progress of the mission being executed."]-[0006 "According to an example, a handheld device comprises a user interface … The user interface may display in separate categories graphical representations of the mobile cleaning robot and the mission routine."] and [0133]-[0155]);
wherein the system is configured to provide the one or more summaries to a user through a graphical user interface (see Figs. 6A and 6F, all; [0004 "The mobile application may display, such as on the handheld device, information about the mission routine, and allow a user to monitor the progress of the mission being executed."]-[0006 "According to an example, a handheld device comprises a user interface … The user interface may display in separate categories graphical representations of the mobile cleaning robot and the mission routine."], [0060] and [0133]-[0155]);
wherein the system is configured to prompt a user to accept or reject job configuration details in response to the presentation of a summary of the job configuration details (see Fig. 6C, "New Favorite"; Fig. 6D, "Save"; Fig. 6E, "Save and Schedule");
wherein the system is configured to respond to the acceptance of job configuration details by storing the job configuration details as a template for a robotic material flow job (see Fig 6A, all, especially Favorites 630; Fig 6F, all, especially 681; [0004]-[0006] and [0136 "The mission routines include a user's “favorites”, which can be saved, personalized common routines performed by one or more mobile robots."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system/process of modified Matsushima to respond to the acceptance of job configuration details by storing the job configuration details as a template for a robotic material flow job, as taught by Schneider, in order to provide convenient access to the template for the user to quickly select a job that fits the user’s schedule and time allocation.
Regarding Claims 5 and 14
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 4 and method of claim 13 (as discussed above in claims 4 and 13),
Matsushima further teaches wherein the system is configured to prompt an input of job configuration details, including a step, for the robotic material flow job configuration (see Fig. 12, input boxes 132a-132c; [0005 "...inputting means provided to be manipulated by an operator for inputting at least one of the desired position and orientation of the robot at a time when the robot reaches the desired position..."], [0055], [0086 "First, in S10 (image generator 116), it is determined whether at least one of the desired position and orientation of the robot 10 is inputted by numeric values through the keyboard 110."] and [0100]-[0104], especially [0101 "For instance, when 1 [m], 2 [m] and 45 [deg] are inputted in the first to third input boxes 132 a, 132 b, 132 c, text as “it moves one meter forward and two meters left, and the orientation there is counterclockwise by 45 degrees” is displayed in the image 170."]).
Although it may be inherent, Matsushima does not explicitly teach the system being configured to prompt an input of job configuration details including a trigger.
Sano teaches wherein the system is configured to prompt an input of job configuration details, including a trigger and a step, for the robotic material flow job configuration (see Figs. 5-6, "annotations"; [0064 "The wide FOR loop icon 314 includes, as detailed setting, a condition for executing each command in the FOR loop icon 314, and achieves a function of palletizing a workpiece by the FOR loop icon 314 and each icon arranged in a range of the FOR loop icon 314."] and [0066]-[0067 "In the program display region 300, the annotation “pickup workpiece A” (annotation 401 a) set for the annotation command icon 401 is displayed in a flag form."] and [0076 "FIG. 6 illustrates, as a reference example, a display example of an annotation in the program display region 300 when an annotation is long and the number of annotations is great."]).
Schneider additionally teaches wherein the system is configured to prompt an input of job configuration details, including a trigger and a step, for the robotic material flow job configuration (see Figs. 6B-6E, all; [0004] and [0137]-[0144], especially [0137 "For example, a context-based cleaning mission may refer to rooms or floor surface areas with reference to a furniture or a furnishing, such as “under the living room couch”, “under the dining table”, “along the kickboard in the kitchen”, “near the kitchen stove”, or “the cabinets area of the kitchen sink”."] and [0144 "A user may use UI controls on the user interface 600E to select or enter time 671 and repeating pattern 672 for a task. In some examples, the schedule for a task may be characterized by, or with reference to, user experience or behavior associated with use, non-use, or a manner of use of a room or an area in the environment. FIG. GE shows an example of a user experience-based task 673, “when I leave the house”."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system/process of modified Matsushima to prompt an input of job configuration details including a step, as taught by Schneider, in order to provide the user with flexible programming of triggers and steps for the robotic material flow job configuration.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 5 and method of claim 14 (as discussed above in claims 5 and 14),
Matsushima is silent regarding wherein the system is configured to present the stored template to a user when a job is called and is responsive to user input regarding job configuration specifications to provide an instance of the job.
Schneider teaches wherein the system is configured to present the stored template to a user when a job is called and is responsive to user input regarding job configuration specifications to provide an instance of the job (see Fig 6A, all, especially Favorites 630; Fig 6F, all, especially 681; [0136 "The mission routines include a user's “favorites”, which can be saved, personalized common routines performed by one or more mobile robots. The favorites may be arranged in a list, or arranged side by side. The user may scroll across the favorites and select a mission routine for execution or edition using the UI controls ... This makes it convenient for a user to quickly select a mission that fits the user's schedule and time allocation."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system/process of modified Matsushima to present the stored template to a user when a job is called and is responsive to user input regarding job configuration specifications to provide an instance of the job, as taught by Schneider, in order to provide convenient access to the template for the user to quickly select a job that fits the user’s schedule and time allocation.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 6 and method of claim 15 (as discussed above in claims 6 and 15),
Matsushima is silent regarding wherein the system is configured to accept location-specific input in the form of a direct location within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Schneider teaches wherein the system is configured to accept location-specific input in the form of a direct location within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template (see Figs. 6C-6D, all; [0139 "The rooms and the areas may have respectively pre-defined locations and dimensions in the environment …A user may use the UI controls to select a room (e.g., “kitchen”), or an area characterized by an object (e.g., “living room couch”), and add it to the mission routine ... For example, after selecting the kitchen table, the user can select from a pre-generated list a contextual identifier “under” for the kitchen table, and create a mission or a task therein using the contextually characterized object “under the kitchen table”."]-[0144]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system/process of modified Matsushima to accept location-specific input in the form of a direct location within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template, as taught by Schneider, in order to provide the user with flexible programming of a robot location for the robotic material flow job configuration.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 6 and method of claim 15 (as discussed above in claims 6 and 15),
Matsushima is silent regarding wherein the system is configured to accept location-specific input in the form of a group of locations within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Schneider teaches wherein the system is configured to accept location-specific input in the form of a group of locations within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template (see Figs. 6C-6D, all; [0139 "The rooms and the areas may have respectively pre-defined locations and dimensions in the environment …A user may use the UI controls to select a room (e.g., “kitchen”), or an area characterized by an object (e.g., “living room couch”), and add it to the mission routine ... For example, after selecting the kitchen table, the user can select from a pre-generated list a contextual identifier “under” for the kitchen table, and create a mission or a task therein using the contextually characterized object “under the kitchen table”."]-[0144]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system/process of modified Matsushima to accept location-specific input in the form of a group of locations within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template, as taught by Schneider, in order to provide the user with flexible programming of robot locations for the robotic material flow job configuration.
Regarding Claims 9 and 18
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 6 and method of claim 15 (as discussed above in claims 6 and 15),
Matsushima is silent regarding wherein the system is configured to accept input in the form of a group of robots within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template.
Schneider teaches wherein the system is configured to accept input in the form of a group of robots within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template (see Fig. 6A, robot menu 610, Fig. 6C, Mappy and Chappie; [0135 "Through a single user interface 600A, a user may coordinate the behaviors of multiple robots … The mobile robots included in the robot menu 610 (such as “Mappy”, “Chappie”, and “Mower” shown in FIG. 6A) may be of different types, such as cleaning (e.g., vacuuming or sweeping) robots, mopping robots, or mowing robots. In an example, two or more robots of the same type (e.g., cleaning robots) may be cataloged in the robot menu 610. A user may use the UI controls, or a finger touch on a touch-screen of the user interface 600A, to select one or more mobile robots, or switch between different mobile robots included in the robot menu 610.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system/process of modified Matsushima to accept input in the form of a group of robots within a facility managed by the system in the context of the stored template, as taught by Schneider, in order to provide additional robots to facilitate the robotic material flow job configuration.
Regarding Claim 20
Modified Matsushima teaches the system of claim 19 (as discussed above in claim 19),
Matsushima further teaches wherein the processor is configured to prompt the user to accept or reject the job configuration details based on the plain language summaries (see Fig. 4, display 112; Fig. 12, image 170 and motion start 136; [0076 "When the operator clicks the motion start button 136, the motion command generated by the motion command generator 146 is forwarded to the input discriminator 150."]-[0078] and [0100]-[0104], especially [0101 "The text is constituted of the numeric values in the image 132 and language combined therewith to express the desired position and orientation of the robot 10. For instance, when 1 [m], 2 [m] and 45 [deg] are inputted in the first to third input boxes 132 a, 132 b, 132 c, text as “it moves one meter forward and two meters left, and the orientation there is counterclockwise by 45 degrees” is displayed in the image 170. Similar to the numeric values in the image 132, the numeric values in the image 170 are changed based on (in response to) the desired position and orientation inputted using the graphics."]).
Matsushima is silent regarding to store the job configuration details as a template in response to user acceptance of the details.
Schneider teaches wherein the processor is configured to prompt the user to accept or reject the job configuration details based on the summaries (see Fig. 6C, "New Favorite"; Fig. 6D, "Save"; Fig. 6E, "Save and Schedule") and to store the job configuration details as a template in response to user acceptance of the details (see Fig 6A, all, especially Favorites 630; Fig 6F, all, especially 681; [0004]-[0006] and [0136 "The mission routines include a user's “favorites”, which can be saved, personalized common routines performed by one or more mobile robots."]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the system/process of modified Matsushima to store the job configuration details as a template in response to user acceptance of the details, as taught by Schneider, in order to provide convenient access to the template for the user to quickly select a job that fits the user’s schedule and time allocation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANNER LUKE CULLEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 MT.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/TANNER L CULLEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights