DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s response to election/restriction filed on February 12, 2026.
Applicant had elected, without traverse, Invention I and had asserted that claims 1-21 read on the elected invention. The requirement is made FINAL.
Claims 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration. Applicant had canceled claims 22-25.
Specification Objection
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“… the step 50B internal shape intersection tests ...” Figure 4 does not outline step 50B - see publication par. 107 and Figure 4.
“In FIG. 2D, first bounding volume 402 is in a pose 402-3 ...” There is not “first bounding volume 402” within Figure 2D - see publication par. 100 and Figures 2D and 3D.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, A method for evaluating whether there is a collision between a first object represented by a first bounding volume and a second object represented by a second bounding volume, the method comprising:
determining at least one internal shape, the at least one internal shape contained within the first bounding volume; and,
determining that there is an intersection between the at least one internal shape and the second bounding volume to conclude that there is a collision between the first object and the second object.
Step 1: Statutory Category - Yes – the claim recited a method for evaluating collision between first and second object including at least one functional limitation(s) / step(s).
Step 2A: Prong one of 2A Evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental Process.
Claim(s) is 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 using mental processes.
The claim 1 recites the limitations (i) “determining at least one internal shape, the at least one internal shape contained within the first bounding volume “ and (ii)
“determining that there is an intersection between the at least one internal shape and the second bounding volume to conclude that there is a collision between the first object and the second object.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that cover performance of these limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For instance, the claim encompasses a user mentally (i) determine, using pen and paper, one or more internal shape of a robot arm (for instance, cylindrical shape(s)) by observing the arm’s volume boundary and (ii) determine a collision between the robot arm with a surrounding object when the arm internal shape (e.g., cylindrical shape) overlaps / intersects with a volume boundary of the object.
Step 2A: Prong Two Evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Evaluation: Invention Concept – No
The claim does not recite additional elements that to significantly more that the judicial exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “determining a bounding shape, wherein the bounding shape contains the first bounding volume” and “determining that there is no intersection between the bounding shape and the second bounding volume to conclude that there is no collision between the first object and the second object” are evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. The “determining” limitations / steps encompass a user mentally (i) determine, using pen and paper, shape boundary of a robot arm (for instance, cylindrical edge) by observing the arm’s volume boundary and (ii) determine no collision between the robot arm with the surrounding object when the arm shape boundary (e.g., cylindrical edge) does not overlaps / intersects with a volume boundary of the object. Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
The claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the additional element, (i) “determining that there is no intersection between the at least one internal shape and the second bounding volume” (ii) and thereby concluding that further collision testing is required to evaluate whether there is a collision between the first object and the second object” are evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. The concluding and determining limitations / steps encompass the user mentally concludes that other collision test needs to be performed between the robot arm and surrounding object if it is determined that there is no overlap / intersection between the arm internal shape (e.g., cylindrical shape) and the volume boundary of the object. Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
The claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the additional element, (i) “determining that there is no intersection between the at least one internal shape and the second bounding volume and that there is an intersection between the bounding shape and the second bounding volume” and (ii) “thereby concluding that further collision testing is required to evaluate whether there is a collision between the first object and the second object” are evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. The concluding and determining limitations / steps encompasses the user mentally concludes that other collision test needs to be performed between the robot arm and surrounding object if there are determined that there is no overlap / intersection between the arm internal shape (e.g., cylindrical shape) and the volume boundary of the object and there is an overlap / intersection between the arm shape boundary (e.g., cylindrical edge) and the volume boundary of the object. Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
The claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the additional element, (i) “determining that there is an intersection between the at least one internal shape and the second bounding volume” and (ii) “determining that there is no intersection between the bounding shape and the second bounding volume are performed using a parallel processing technique” are evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. The “determining” limitations / steps encompass a user mentally determine (j) an overlap / intersection between the arm internal shape (e.g., cylindrical shape) and a volume boundary of the object and non-overlap / non-intersection between the arm shape boundary (e.g., cylindrical edge) and the volume boundary of the object by performing separate analysis using pen and paper. Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
The claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 8-11, the claims do not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 12-15, the claims do not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 16-20, the claims do not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the additional element “ … determining that there is an intersection between the second bounding volume and at least one of the two or more internal shapes.” are evaluated in Prong 1 of 2A. The “determining” limitations / steps encompasses a user mentally determine an overlap / intersection between multiple arm internal shapes (e.g., cylindrical shapes) and a volume boundary of the object using pen and paper. Hence, the claim recites mental processes and is not eligible.
The claim does not contain additional element that would integrate the identified mental exception, as cited on claim(s) above, into a practical application in a manner that impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. There is no inventive step in 2B per the same reasoning as explained above. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffiths et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0298406 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Griffiths et al. disclose a method for collision avoidance for manipulation device, the method comprising:
determining at least one internal shape, the at least one internal shape contained within the first bounding volume (e.g., Figure 2A shows internal shape of virtual boundary 230 for arm(s) 210/220 and joint 215, wherein the virtual boundary covers three-dimension space (par. 40 and Figure 2A) for a volume interaction (par. 7, 30, 42) – see Figure 2A annotation below); and,
PNG
media_image1.png
412
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining that there is an intersection between the at least one internal shape and the second bounding volume (e.g., determine overlap 270 between internal shape of virtual boundary 230 and a virtual boundary 260 of arm(s) 240/250 and joint 245 having three-dimension space (par. 41 and Figure 2A and 2B) to conclude that there is a collision between the first object and the second object (e.g., determine a virtual collision when internal shape of virtual boundary 230 and virtual boundary 260 of arm(s) 240/250 and joint 245 overlaps (par. 42, 29 and 7) – see Figure 2A annotation below).
PNG
media_image2.png
408
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Griffiths et al. disclose a method for collision avoidance for determining a bounding shape (e.g., Figure 2A shows virtual boundary shape (230) for arm(s) 210/220 and joint 215)), wherein the bounding shape contains the first bounding volume (e.g., wherein the virtual boundary shape covers three-dimension space (par. 40 and Figure 2A) for a volume interaction (par. 7, 30, 42);
determining that there is no intersection between the bounding shape and the second bounding volume to conclude that there is no collision between the first object and the second object (e.g., Figure 2A shows no virtual collision between virtual boundary shape (230) of arm(s) (210/220) and joint (215) and the virtual boundary 260 of arm(s) (240/250) and joint (245) during the control of the arm(s) / end effector operation (par. 40-41 and 4 and Figure 2A)).
Regarding claim 8, Griffiths et al. disclose a method for collision avoidance for manipulation device, wherein the at least one internal shape comprises an inscribed shape (e.g., Figure 2A shows shape of arm(s) / link(s) 210/220 within the virtual boundary 230 (par. 40) ).
Regarding claim 10, a method for collision avoidance for manipulation device, wherein the first bounding volume is inscribed within the bounding shape (e.g., Figure 2A shows virtual boundary shape (230) for arm(s) 210/220 and joint 215 comprising three-dimension boundary (par. 40 and Figure 2A), which covers the first bounding volume).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jorge O. Peche whose telephone number is (571)270-1339. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Khoi H. 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.
/Jorge O Peche/Examiner, Art Unit 3656