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 .
Claim 9 has been amended.
Claims 1-8 & 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 9 & 11-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See Examiner’s response below.
With respect to Claims 9 & 11-17 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, applicant appears to assert that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains his position with respect to the same. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as a storage unit, a processing unit, and a device do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing, adding, and generating are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions. Storing information, adding information, searching information, and generating a response does not constitute a substantive technical improvement. Performing a process of creating a program and generating a procedure is a mental process that can be completed with the assistance of pen and paper. 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 with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Claim 9 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant appears to assert that the cited art does not teach “the first memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information each identifying at lease one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure to be executed in response to an alarm generation in one alarm processing, and at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to search the second memory, and in a case where applicable alarm attribute information is not found, to search the first memory, and to create a user program that performs the at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure based on the alarm attribute information”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sykes teaches [FIG. 4] alarm generation in generation of templates based on alarms and alarm recovery in storage of the alarm in queue based on criteria associated with the alarm. Sykes further teaches [FIG. 6] a process of alarm generation in receiving a request to escalate an alarm and alarm recovery in storage of an identifier associated with an alarm report. Thus, the cited art does in fact teach “the first memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information each identifying at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure to be executed in response to an alarm generation in one alarm processing, and at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to search the second memory, and in a case where applicable alarm attribute information is not found, to search the first memory, and to create a user program that performs the at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure based on the alarm attribute information”.
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 9 & 11-17 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) mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because generically recited computer elements such as a storage unit, a processing unit, a memory, a processor, and a device do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because storing, adding, searching, and generating are well understood, routine, conventional computer functions.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites: A robot control system comprising a robot control device having a first memory and a first processor for controlling a robot, and a management device having a second memory and a second processor for managing the robot control device, wherein the first memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information each identifying at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure to be executed in response to an alarm generation in one alarm processing, the second memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information, at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to add an alarm attribute information database to the second memory according to an input by a user, and at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to search the second memory, and in a case where applicable alarm attribute information is not found, to search the first memory, and to create a user program that performs the at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure based on the alarm attribute information.
The limitation of the first memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information, the second memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information each identifying at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure to be executed in response to an alarm generation in one alarm processing as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually place data associated with an alert onto and into a specified location.
The limitation of the second memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “storing” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to manually place data associated with an alert onto and into a specified location.
The limitation of at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to add an alarm attribute information database to the second memory according to an input by a user as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “adding” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to place additional stored data into a location which houses other stored data.
The limitation of at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to search the second memory, and in a case where applicable alarm attribute information is not found, to search the first memory, and to create a user program that performs the at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure based on the alarm attribute information as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, in the context of this claim, “generating” encompasses the user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper to produce some form of an alert based on certain data.
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 with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements which is to perform storing a plurality of alarm attribute information databases, adding an alarm attribute information database, and generating an alarm steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform storing, adding, and generating steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are not directed to any additional/substantive claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claim above – such as: wherein the alarm attribute information includes at least one of display text, alarm severity, alarm generated case processing procedure, or alarm recovered case processing procedure; wherein the alarm attribute information includes a plurality of the display texts corresponding to different languages; wherein the alarm processing unit is configured to determine a change mode of a program execution state, a display method of the display text, and whether to treat as a system error according to the alarm severity; wherein the alarm processing unit is capable of adding related information corresponding to a situation when an alarm is generated to the display text and displaying the display text; wherein the alarm processing unit executes the alarm generated case processing procedure at a time of alarm generation; wherein the alarm processing unit executes the alarm recovered case processing procedure at a time of recovery from an alarm; and wherein the alarm processing unit is configured to generate an alarm according to an alarm call instruction included in a user program.
These steps are abstract ideas similar to those noted in independent claim 1 because they further the limitations of claim 1 which is directed towards an abstract idea.
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.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements which is to perform including information, determining a change mode, a display method, and whether to treat as a system error, executing the alarm, and generating an alarm steps. These limitations amount to no more than data gathering, data analysis, and a mere transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations to perform including, displaying, executing, and generating steps are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv)). The claims 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.
Claim(s) 9, 11, & 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelon (US Patent No. 7,650,364 B2) in view of Sykes et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0159907 A1).
In respect to Claim 9, Pelon teaches:
a robot control system comprising a robot control device having a first memory and a first processor for controlling a robot, and a management device having a second memory and a second processor for managing the robot control device, wherein the first memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information each identifying an event to be executed in one alarm processing, (Pelon illustrates [FIG. 1] a master computer, wherein the master computer is analogous to a database storage unit, that stores a plurality of central databases which stores information.)
the second memory is configured to store a plurality of alarm attribute information databases each storing a plurality of pieces of alarm attribute information, at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to add an alarm attribute information database to the second memory according to an input by a user, (Pelon teaches [0099, 0106] adding a database to the storage unit. (Pelon teaches [0099, 0106] adding a database to the storage unit.))
Pelon does not explicitly disclose:
alarm attribute information
and at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to search the second memory, and in a case where applicable alarm attribute information is not found, to search the first memory, and to generate an alarm based on the alarm attribute information
identifying at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure to be executed in response to an alarm generation in one alarm processing, and to create a user program that performs the at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure based on the alarm attribute information
However, Sykes teaches:
alarm attribute information (Sykes teaches [0004] alarm data, wherein alarm data is analogous to alarm attribute information.)
and at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to search the second memory, and in a case where applicable alarm attribute information is not found, to search the first memory, and to generate an alarm based on the alarm attribute information (Sykes teaches [0019] generation of an alarm.)
identifying at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure to be executed in response to an alarm generation in one alarm processing, and to create a user program that performs the at least one of an alarm generated case processing procedure and an alarm recovered case processing procedure based on the alarm attribute information (Sykes teaches [FIG. 4] alarm generation in generation of templates based on alarms and alarm recovery in storage of the alarm in queue based on criteria associated with the alarm. Sykes further teaches [FIG. 6] a process of alarm generation in receiving a request to escalate an alarm and alarm recovery in storage of an identifier associated with an alarm report.)
Sykes teaches [0018, 0021, 0032] search multiple sources for identification of alarm information. Sources are searched until alarm information is located.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sykes into the system of Pelon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which creates and executes queries to collect information related to alarms. (Sykes [0002])
As per Claim 11, Sykes teaches:
wherein the alarm attribute information includes at least one of display text, alarm severity, alarm generated case processing procedure, or alarm recovered case processing procedure (Sykes [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sykes into the system of Pelon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which creates and executes queries to collect information related to alarms. (Sykes [0002])
As per Claim 13, Sykes teaches:
wherein the alarm processing unit is configured to determine a change mode of a program execution state, a display method of the display text, and whether to treat as a system error according to the alarm severity (Sykes [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sykes into the system of Pelon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which creates and executes queries to collect information related to alarms. (Sykes [0002])
As per Claim 14, Sykes teaches:
wherein the alarm processing unit is capable of adding related information corresponding to a situation when an alarm is generated to the display text and displaying the display text (Sykes [Abstract])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sykes into the system of Pelon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which creates and executes queries to collect information related to alarms. (Sykes [0002])
As per Claim 15, Sykes teaches:
wherein the alarm processing unit executes the alarm generated case processing procedure at a time of alarm generation (Sykes [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sykes into the system of Pelon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which creates and executes queries to collect information related to alarms. (Sykes [0002])
As per Claim 16, Sykes teaches:
wherein the alarm processing unit executes the alarm recovered case processing procedure at a time of recovery from an alarm (Sykes [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sykes into the system of Pelon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which creates and executes queries to collect information related to alarms. (Sykes [0002])
As per Claim 17, Sykes teaches:
wherein the alarm processing unit is configured to generate an alarm according to an alarm call instruction included in a user program (Sykes [0019])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Sykes into the system of Pelon. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system which creates and executes queries to collect information related to alarms. (Sykes [0002])
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelon & Sykes, and further in view of Havekost (US Pub. No. 2002/0055790 A1).
As per Claim 12, Pelon & Sykes does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the alarm attribute information includes a plurality of the display texts corresponding to different languages
However, Havekost teaches:
wherein the alarm attribute information includes a plurality of the display texts corresponding to different languages (Havekost teaches [0055] display of alarm in different languages.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Havekost into the systems of Pelon & Sykes. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide a system that enables a person to view and interpret all of the alarm or event data in an organized and integrated manner. (Havekost [0010])
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BULLOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-1395. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/JOSHUA BULLOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153 June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights