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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 28 September 2023, 07 May 2025, 20 August 2025 and 03 September 2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 recites “A robot failure symptom detection method for detecting a symptom of failure of a robot, the method comprising: a behavior time-sequence data acquisition step of performing, for each data collection unit period, processing of acquiring behavior time-sequence data related to a motor of a joint of the robot, from a robot operation; an evaluation value calculation step of calculating an evaluation value for the behavior time-sequence data acquired in the behavior time-sequence data acquisition step; a representative evaluation value generation step of generating, for each data collection unit period, a representative evaluation value representing the evaluation values, from the evaluation values obtained in the evaluation value calculation step; a sequence processing step of generating a sequence of the representative evaluation values; a model creation step of creating a determination model, based on an initial sequence generated in the sequence processing step, during an initial operation of the robot; and a determination step of inputting, after the initial operation, determination data including data based on a robot operation after the initial operation into the created determination model to acquire atypicality of the determination data.”
Claim 19, in view of the claim limitations, recites the abstract idea of “a behavior time-sequence data acquisition step of performing, for each data collection unit period, processing of acquiring behavior time-sequence data related to a motor of a joint of the robot, from a robot operation; an evaluation value calculation step of calculating an evaluation value for the behavior time-sequence data acquired in the behavior time-sequence data acquisition step; a representative evaluation value generation step of generating, for each data collection unit period, a representative evaluation value representing the evaluation values, from the evaluation values obtained in the evaluation value calculation step; a sequence processing step of generating a sequence of the representative evaluation values; a model creation step of creating a determination model, based on an initial sequence generated in the sequence processing step, during an initial operation of the robot; and a determination step of inputting, after the initial operation, determination data including data based on a robot operation after the initial operation into the created determination model to acquire atypicality of the determination data.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “a behavior time-sequence data acquisition step of performing, for each data collection unit period, processing of acquiring behavior time-sequence data related to a motor of a joint of the robot, from a robot operation; an evaluation value calculation step of calculating an evaluation value for the behavior time-sequence data acquired in the behavior time-sequence data acquisition step; a representative evaluation value generation step of generating, for each data collection unit period, a representative evaluation value representing the evaluation values, from the evaluation values obtained in the evaluation value calculation step; a sequence processing step of generating a sequence of the representative evaluation values; a model creation step of creating a determination model, based on an initial sequence generated in the sequence processing step, during an initial operation of the robot; and a determination step of inputting, after the initial operation, determination data including data based on a robot operation after the initial operation into the created determination model to acquire atypicality of the determination data.”; therefore, the claim recites mental processes. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process, and thus, the claim recites an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions” as recited in claim 1, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-18 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0258] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims). Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-18 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Santo et al (US 12,318,945) disclose a robot system that includes a robot including a joint, a motor provided at the joint, a regenerative resistor that consumes a back electromotive force generated by rotation of the motor as heat, and a controller configured or programmed to predict a life of the regenerative resistor based on a period of time during which the regenerative resistor is consuming heat. Hiraide et al (US 11,931,905) disclose a failure prediction method of predicting a failure of a component of a robot including a robot arm having the component and a detection section that detects information on vibration characteristics when the robot arm moves, includes generating a failure prediction model for prediction of the failure of the component by machine learning based on the information on vibration characteristics, and predicting the failure of the component based on an estimated value of failure prediction output by the generated failure prediction model when the information on vibration characteristics is input to the generated failure prediction model. Sun et al (US 11,835,420) disclose a method that includes obtaining a spectrum of a motion signal generated by a rotating component of the robot during operation of the robot. A frequency amplitude of a sub-component of the rotating component is determined from the spectrum, based on a physical characteristic and a speed of the sub-component. A failure of the sub-component is detected by comparing the frequency amplitude with a threshold amplitude. Yajima et al (US 10,363,660) disclose a method that includes the steps of, by the control device, recording movement information of the joints based on outputs of the detection devices; when detecting an abnormality in the operation of the articulated robot, determining presence or absence of a failure in the articulated robot based on the movement information recorded in at least a period from before detection of the abnormality until detection of the abnormality; and specifying a failure portion of the articulated robot if it is determined that there is a failure in the articulated robot in the step of determining.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272-5960. 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.uspto.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.
/AN H DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights