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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/08/2024, 07/29/2025, and 11/10/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification (MPEP 608.01, ¶6.31).
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 13 are missing a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Light emission unit
Operation unit
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Light emission units are understood to be LEDs or the like, based on paragraph 0051 of the specification.
Operation unit indicates an input mechanism, involving systems such as a microphone, touch panel, a display, based on paragraph 0057 of the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 recite “a set of the recommendation condition and the non-recommendation condition in which the recommendation operation content and the non-recommendation operation content are same operation contents as each other”. This seems to indicate that both the recommendation condition and the non-recommendation condition are the same, such that the predetermined conditions correspond to both being recommended or non-recommended. In such an interpretation, there is essentially no distinction between the conditions, rendering it unclear how one would be fulfilled over the other [for example, causing a recommendation condition to be fulfilled, such as an interruption in the path or trajectory, under this limitation, would also fulfill the non-recommendation condition, which is intended to invoke different responses in light patterns at least; however, it is unclear what should occur in this case where both conditions are fulfilled {would both light patterns be active, would one condition be chosen over the other etc.}].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea accomplishable by mental processes without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of receiving data, analyzing whether to recommend an action, and outputting a recommendation based on the analysis, which is analogous to mental work with the aid of generic computer equipment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes, The claims are directed to a system (claims 1-9), a method (claims 10-18) and a non-transitory computer readable medium (claims 19-20).
Step 2A; is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of collecting, organizing and manipulating data. In essence, the independent claims recite; collection of sensor data, analyzing data, and outputting a recommendation based on the analysis, via the use of a light emission unit.
Prong One; Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Yes, as understood in their broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims are directed to receiving data, analyzing it, and generating a recommendation based on the data, in the form of controlling a light emission unit to indicate a recommendation or a non-recommendation state. In addition, the remaining claim limitations either work to develop the abstract idea further [such as defining what the recommendation is intended to indicate], or to implement the idea onto generic computer components [such as using generically recited processors and light emission unit].
Prong Two; Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the elements are generically recited and represent well understood and conventional technology in the art. In particular;
Processors are generically recited, and are well within the realm of conventional/generically recited CPUs/computer equipment.
The recited light emission unit is understood to LEDs, and the controls relating to it only serve to act as a rudimentary communication to a user [effectively an indicator light or display, which is well known in the art]. As the mere display of information, notifications etc. are considered to be insignificant extra solution activity, the inclusion of such a light emission unit or control of a light emission unit does not integrate the abstract idea of receiving, analyzing and manipulating data.
A joystick merely serves to input data from the user, which does not specify that the data is even used for the claimed analysis, nor actively controls the mobile robot, and thus does not integrate the idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the use of a joystick is well understood and conventional in the control of robotics.
In total, as the only result of the data analysis is control of a display, not of the recited mobile robot.
Therefore, this abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the same reasons as described above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, Claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Using similar reasoning to above, Claims 1-20 do not add any significant structure or elements that qualify as significantly more, and instead merely further detail/define aspects of the abstract idea, and thus do not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano (JP2014186895A, see IDS dated 11/10/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano discloses;
A control system configured to execute system control of controlling a system including a mobile robot that is configured to autonomously move and on which a user operation is executed (disclosed as an autonomous mobile unmanned transfer vehicle, element 1, hereafter referred to as “the vehicle”), wherein:
the system includes a light emission unit (disclosed as a status display lamp, element 40, an action start switch lamp, element 46, and a brake release switch lamp, element 47);
the control system includes one or more processors (disclosed as a control board, element 37, including a microprocessor, paragraph 0047);
the one or more processors are configured to execute the system control (disclosed as the microprocessor executing programs, paragraph 0047);
the system control includes light emission control of causing the light emission unit to emit light in different light emission patterns associated with each of a plurality of predetermined conditions (disclosed as controlling lamps based on the control state/status; for example, lighting the status display lamp in red and blinking the action start switch lamp due to a transfer interruption, while other statuses, such as determining the package has been received, causes the status display lamp to be green, paragraph 0059); and
at least one [as currently phrased, only one of the following conditions is interpreted to be required] of the plurality of predetermined conditions is a recommendation condition that is a predetermined condition for recommending a user operation [interpreted to mean requesting a user input] on the mobile robot (disclosed as the lamps and audio indicating a user interaction, such as “please put a medicine tray” and “press the blinking button when the setting is completed”, paragraph 0097) or a non-recommendation condition that is a predetermined condition for not recommending a user operation on the mobile robot (disclosed as determining that autonomous movement is possible, and controlling the vehicle accordingly, paragraph 0061, for example, determining that the transfer process is finished causes the status display lamp to turn green to indicate such, paragraph 0096).
Regarding claim 2, Nakano discloses;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the plurality of predetermined conditions include at least one [as currently phrased, only one of the following conditions is interpreted to be required] set of
a set of a plurality of the recommendation conditions in which recommendation operation contents are different [interpreted to mean that the robot requests different user actions] from each other (disclosed as instructing the user to perform different actions, such as placing a medicine tray on the robot, and press the blinking button, paragraphs 0059 and 0097),
a set of a plurality of the non-recommendation conditions in which non-recommendation operation contents are different from each other (indicated in that several actions without interacting with the robot can be outputted; for example, using a status light to indicate normal procedure in the operation [and thus do not interrupt], and other actions including placing a medicine tray, paragraph 0097), and
a set of the recommendation condition and the non-recommendation condition in which the recommendation operation content and the non-recommendation operation content are same operation contents as each other (disclosed as resulting in the same operation of placing a medicine tray, paragraph 0059, where the user does not actively control or move the robot even in a condition where user intervention may be requested).
Regarding claim 3, Nakano discloses;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein
the recommendation condition includes a condition for recommending a user operation of enabling reception of a movement operation on the mobile robot (disclosed as requesting a user action, such as to press a button during a transfer interruption to proceed [such as move] with the process, paragraph 0059), and
the non-recommendation condition includes a condition for not recommending a user operation of enabling reception of the movement operation on the mobile robot (indicated in not specifically requesting user intervention and continuing autonomous control, paragraph 0059, reasonably interpreted to be equivalent to leave the vehicle alone).
Regarding claim 6, Nakano discloses;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein:
the light emission unit includes a first light emission unit provided in an operation unit that receives the user operation or in a surrounding of the operation unit (disclosed as the status display lamp, element 40, the action start switch lamp, element 46, and the brake release switch lamp, element 47, being located on the vehicle and near an input device such as an action start switch, element 26, a brake release switch, element 27, an emergency stop switch, element 28, or a joystick, paragraph 0044);
at least one of the plurality of predetermined conditions is the recommendation condition (disclosed as determining a condition that causes, for example, a transfer interruption, paragraph 0059, which indicates a need for user intervention); and
a light emission pattern associated with the recommendation condition is a light emission pattern in which light is emitted in at least the first light emission unit (disclosed as controlling lamps based on the control state/status; for example, lighting the status display lamp in red and blinking the action start switch lamp due to a transfer interruption, while other statuses, such as determining the package has been received, causes the status display lamp to be green, paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 7, Nakano discloses;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein:
the light emission unit includes a first light emission unit provided in an operation unit that receives the user operation or in a surrounding of the operation unit (taught as the status display lamp, element 40, the action start switch lamp, element 46, and the brake release switch lamp, element 47, being located on the vehicle and near an input device such as an action start switch, element 26, a brake release switch, element 27, an emergency stop switch, element 28, or a joystick, paragraph 0044), and
a second light emission unit disposed at a position separated from the first light emission unit (indicated in the multiple lamps, including differentiating between the status display lamp and the action start switch lamp);
at least one of the plurality of predetermined conditions is the recommendation condition; and
a light emission pattern associated with a condition other than the recommendation condition among the predetermined conditions is a light emission pattern in which light is emitted in at least the second light emission unit (taught as controlling lamps based on the control state/status; for example, lighting the status display lamp in red and blinking the action start switch lamp due to a transfer interruption, while other statuses, such as determining the package has been received, causes the status display lamp to be green, paragraph 0059, indicating the pattern control of multiple lamps).
Regarding claim 8, Nakano discloses;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the different light emission patterns include light emission patterns in which at least one of luminance, hue, chroma saturation, and brightness of light emission in the light emission unit is differentiated (disclosed as modifying the colors [hue] and blinking patterns of lamps, paragraph 0035, exemplified in paragraph 0059 with red and green).
Regarding claim 9, Nakano discloses;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein the system includes a joystick device that receives the user operation (disclosed as a joystick to input user control, paragraph 0044).
Regarding claims 10-12 and 15-20, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 1-3 and 6-9. Therefore, claims 10-12 and 15-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-3 and 6-9, wherein;
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 correspond to claims 1-2,
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 3,
And claims 15-18 correspond to claims 6-9 respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP2014186895A) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Levinson (US20180136651A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakano teaches;
The control system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection), wherein
the non-recommendation condition includes a condition for not recommending the movement operation of causing the mobile robot to move in the predetermined direction (indicated in not specifically requesting user intervention and continuing autonomous control, paragraph 0059, reasonably interpreted to be equivalent to leave the vehicle alone)
However, Nakano does not explicitly teach; the recommendation condition includes a condition for recommending a movement operation of causing the mobile robot to move in a predetermined direction.
Levinson teaches; the recommendation condition includes a condition for recommending a movement operation of causing the mobile robot to move in a predetermined direction (taught as notifying a teleoperator of a subset of candidate trajectories via a display, which the teleoperator then selects from to cause the vehicle to follow, paragraph 0096).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate suggestions of candidate trajectories as taught by Levinson in the system taught by Nakano in order to improve user interactions. By providing already generated trajectories to a user, one can increase the response speed from the user in overcoming the situation that required manual input. As Nakano deals with aspects of tele-operation (such as via a remote control station using a joystick to control a vehicle, paragraph 0044), one of ordinary skill in the art would think to improve actions taken by the vehicle by offloading some calculations, when possible, from the user and present suggestions for the next action needed, and further account for considerations determined by the vehicle, such as confidence levels and reducing collisions, as suggested by Levinson (paragraph 0072, for example).
Regarding claim 5, Nakano as modified by Levinson teaches;
The control system according to claim 4 (see claim 4 rejection), wherein:
at least one of the plurality of predetermined conditions is the recommendation condition;
however, Nakano does not explicitly teach;
the light emission control includes control of causing the light emission unit to emit light such that the predetermined direction is indicated, in a case where the recommendation condition for recommending the movement operation of causing the mobile robot to move in the predetermined direction is satisfied.
Levinson teaches; the light emission control includes control of causing the light emission unit to emit light such that the predetermined direction is indicated (taught as presenting the teleoperator with a subset of candidate trajectories/courses of action [which would indicate a direction] to select from, S1508, Fig 15, paragraph 0096), in a case where the recommendation condition for recommending the movement operation of causing the mobile robot to move in the predetermined direction is satisfied (taught as detecting a non-normative state of operation, S1502, Fig 15, paragraph 0096).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate suggestions of candidate trajectories as taught by Levinson in the system taught by Nakano in order to improve user interactions. By providing already generated trajectories to a user, one can increase the response speed from the user in overcoming the situation that required manual input. As Nakano deals with aspects of tele-operation (such as via a remote control station using a joystick to control a vehicle, paragraph 0044), one of ordinary skill in the art would think to improve actions taken by the vehicle by offloading some calculations, when possible, from the user and present suggestions for the next action needed, and further account for considerations determined by the vehicle, such as confidence levels and reducing collisions, as suggested by Levinson (paragraph 0072, for example).
Regarding claims 13-14, it has been determined that no further limitations exist apart from those previously addressed in claims 4-5. Therefore, claims 13-14 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 4-5 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For further suggestions provided to a user intervention/control (claim 4); US20210102813A1
For further robots requesting user interaction; US20150019391A1
For further robots using LEDs to communicate with users on its state; US10311400B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL ANFINRUD whose telephone number is (571)270-3401. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571)270-3969. 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.
/GABRIEL ANFINRUD/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662