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 .
This action is in response to the amendments filed 11/07/2025 in which claims 23-24 were cancelled. Claims 25-27 have been added. Claims 13-22 have been presented for examination and are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that independent claim 13 is clarified herewith to indicate that a collision force between the robotic device and the human operator does not exceed a predefined limit as a result of the claimed steps. The clarification amounts to more than just a mental process as harm to the operator is avoided or reduced, which is a practical application of the claimed steps.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because:
Generic computing unit: The claim recites a “computing unit” performing the calculations, which is nothing more than a generic computer applied as a tool to perform the mental and mathematical operations. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
No actual robot control: The claim does not recite actually controlling the robotic device’s speed, limiting its motion, or applying the calculated speed to the robotic device’s operation. It merely “outputs a signal dependent on the calculated permissible maximum speed.” This is generic post-solution activity — outputting the result of a calculation.
“So that” clause is a statement of intended use: The concluding phrase “so that a collision force between the robotic device and the human operator does not exceed a predefined limit” is not an active method step. It merely states the purpose or desired outcome of the calculation without requiring any structural or methodological implementation to achieve that result. Statements of intended purpose do not impose meaningful limitations. See MPEP § 2111.04.
No feedback loop or real-time application: The claim does not recite applying the speed limit during actual robot operation, monitoring collision forces, or dynamically adjusting robot behavior.
Predefined inputs are data gathering: Predefining a contact point, geometry, and spatial boundary conditions amounts to selecting input data for the mathematical model, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is therefore maintained.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “Rhim further does not disclose determining whether the collision is a clamp-free collision or a clamped collision.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Rhim teaches in ¶[0060],”step S140 of calculating the maximum speed of the test robot at which the magnitudes of a collision pressure and collision force fall within predetermined allowable safety reference values” ¶[0074], ¶[0090], “ In step S140 of calculating the maximum speed of the test robot at which the magnitudes of a collision pressure and collision force fall within predetermined allowable safety reference values, when the magnitudes of the collision pressure (P) and collision force (F.sub.C) are greater than the magnitudes of the predetermined maximum collision pressure (P.sub.MAX) and predetermined maximum collision force (F.sub.MAX), a maximum speed at which the magnitudes of the collision pressure (P) and collision force (F.sub.C) satisfy the magnitudes of the maximum collision pressure (P.sub.MAX) and maximum collision force (F.sub.MAX) is calculated”. Further both Rhim (¶[0112]) and Johnson (¶[0043]) expressly reference ISO/TS 15066, which explicitly distinguishes between:
Transient contact (clamp-free/free-body impact)
Quasi-static contact (clamped/constrained body impact)
A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), knowing ISO/TS 15066, would recognize the need to classify collisions and apply appropriate models. Under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). A POSITA implementing Rhim’s or Johnson’s safety evaluation in accordance with TS 15066 would necessarily distinguish between transient and quasi-static contacts because the standard itself prescribes different permissible force/pressure limits for each type.
Applicant further argues that Rhim does not teach the claimed case distinction:
- case 1: calculating (...) the permissible maximum speed of the robotic device at
the contact point with a free-impact model if the collision is a clamp-free collision,
- case 2: calculating (...) the permissible maximum speed of the robotic device at
the contact point with a clamping-impact model or with a quasi-static-clamping
model if the collision is a clamped collision.
The Office Action refers to Johnson with respect to the above-mentioned limitation wherein the models in each case are different models. However, while Johnson may teach simulating multiple processes for determining a maximum allowed velocity, there appears to be no disclosure or suggestion of determining whether the collision is a clamp-free collision or a clamped collision or the above-mentioned case distinction.
As explained above Rhim in combination with Johnson teaches determining whether the collision is a clamp-free collision or a clamped collision or the above-mentioned case distinction. Furthermore, Johnson at ¶[0084] explicitly discusses scenarios “where the robot can pinch a body part,” demonstrating awareness and identification of clamping scenarios. Combined with Johnson’s spatial proximity analysis (¶[0085], [0067], [0068]), which determines whether obstacles constrain the space around a human body part, the reference teaches evaluating whether a collision would result in clamping. The explicit mention of “pinching” is the functional equivalent of identifying a “clamped collision.” Rhim teaches calculating maximum speed (¶[0090]), and Johnson teaches that context-specific limits allow the robot to operate at higher speeds when safe to do so (¶[0023]: “In regions where collision is unlikely, robot operations, e.g., torque and velocity constraints, can be relaxed to enable improved processing speed”). Applying different collision models depending on whether a body part is constrained is the direct, predictable consequence of implementing ISO/TS 15066 (expressly referenced by both references) within a context-aware robot control framework (Johnson’s core teaching) that calculates maximum speeds (Rhim’s core teaching).
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but have been found unpersuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is therefore maintained.
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 13-22, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 13 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 13 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 13 recites:
A method for predefining a permissible maximum speed for a robotic device, comprising:
predefining a contact point between a human operator and the robotic device for a collision between the human operator and the robotic device, a geometry of the robotic device at the contact point, and a spatial boundary condition of the collision;
under consideration of the spatial boundary condition, determining whether the collision is a clamp-free collision or a clamped collision using a computing unit;
calculating, by the computing unit, the permissible maximum speed of the robotic device at the contact point with a free-impact model if the collision is a clamp-free collision, and with a clamping-impact model or with a quasi-static-clamping model if the collision is a clamped collision, wherein the models in each case are different models;
outputting, by the computing unit, a signal dependent on the calculated permissible maximum speed for the robotic device, so that a collision force between the robotic device and the human operator does not exceed a predefined limit.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “predefining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually writing down a contact point geometrically between an operator and a robotic device. Similarly, the limitation of “determining… and calculating…” in the context of this claim encompasses the user visually determining the type of collision and calculating some safe max speed based on modelled speeds. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract 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 the underlined portions above which are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”:
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “using a computing unit,” and “outputting, by the computing unit, a signal dependent on the calculated permissible maximum speed for the robotic device” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer and sensor to perform the process. In particular, the computing unit is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “outputting” is simply data transmission. (See TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 611-12, 118 USPQ2d at 1747). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 13 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining/calculating that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a sensor to perform the receiving amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As discussed above, the examiner submits that the additional limitations of “computing unit…,” and “outputing…,” are insignificant extra-solution activities. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 14-22 and 25-27 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be directed towards statutory subject matter. The claims merely recite various conditions to calculate the permissible maximum speed and perform more calculations. Each of the further limitations expound upon the mental process and do not recite additional elements integrating the mental process into a practical application or additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Therefore, dependent claims 14-22 and 25-27 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claims 13-22, 25-27 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-16, 19-20, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rhim et al. (USPGPUB No. US 20210362338 A1) hereinafter “Rhim” in view of Johnson et al. (USPGPUB No. US 20200086482 A1) hereinafter “Johnson”.
Regarding claim 13, Rhim teaches a method for predefining a permissible maximum speed for a robotic device, comprising:
predefining a contact point between a human operator and the robotic device for a collision between the human operator and the robotic device, a geometry of the robotic device at the contact point, and a spatial boundary condition of the collision; (Rhim, [0065] “In step S130 of evaluating the safety of the robot every predetermined time, in consideration of the shape, effective mass, movement speed, and direction of the injury-causing dangerous portion of the test robot 10, a collision pressure (P) and collision force (F.sub.C) applied to a collision object 20 are obtained every predetermined time, and the safety of the robot R is evaluated by determining whether the magnitudes of the collision pressure and collision force obtained every predetermined time fall within the magnitudes of a predetermined maximum collision pressure (P.sub.MAX) and maximum collision force (F.sub.MAX).”; [0068] “Specifically, the collision force (F.sub.C) applied to the collision object 20 may be implemented through Equation 1 below. Here, the collision object 20 may be a person, an effective mass (M.sub.i) for the collision portion of the test robot may be calculated based on kinematics, and an effective mass (M.sub.h) for the collision portion of the collision object may be determined in advance by user input. The displacement of the collision portion (y.sub.i) of the test robot and the displacement of the collision portion (y.sub.h) of the collision object may be obtained through the CAE system.”; [0074] “In addition, the collision pressure (P) applied to the collision object 20 may be implemented through Equation 2 below. Here, the skin elasticity (K) and skin thickness (h) of the collision object may be input by a user through the CAE system and stored in advance.”)
under consideration of the spatial boundary condition, determining whether the collision is a clamp-free collision or a clamped collision using a computing unit; calculating, by the computing unit, the permissible maximum speed of the robotic device at the contact point with a free-impact model if the collision is a clamp-free collision, and with a clamping-impact model or with a quasi-static-clamping model if the collision is a clamped collision, (Rhim, [0060],”step S140 of calculating the maximum speed of the test robot at which the magnitudes of a collision pressure and collision force fall within predetermined allowable safety reference values” [0074], [0090], “ In step S140 of calculating the maximum speed of the test robot at which the magnitudes of a collision pressure and collision force fall within predetermined allowable safety reference values, when the magnitudes of the collision pressure (P) and collision force (F.sub.C) are greater than the magnitudes of the predetermined maximum collision pressure (P.sub.MAX) and predetermined maximum collision force (F.sub.MAX), a maximum speed at which the magnitudes of the collision pressure (P) and collision force (F.sub.C) satisfy the magnitudes of the maximum collision pressure (P.sub.MAX) and maximum collision force (F.sub.MAX) is calculated”)
outputting, by the computing unit, a signal dependent on the calculated permissible maximum speed for the robotic device. (Rhim, Fig. 1, S150, [0091]-[0093])
so that a collision force between the robotic device and the human operator does not exceed a predefined limit. (Rhim, [0095])
Although Rhim teaches in Equation 2 modeling a degree of deformation of skin of collision object which implies using more than 1 model since one of ordinary skills in the art can vary this degree, Rhim does not expressly teach
wherein the models in each case are different models;
However Johnson teaches:
wherein the models in each case are different models; (Johnson [0074] “One such embodiment uses a monte carlo analysis that determines a stopping distance of the robot, maximum allowed velocity of the robot, and maximum allowed torque of the robot by simulating one or more of: (i) object collisions, (ii) object detection rates, (iii) communication failures, and (iv) camera failures. In such an embodiment, the context specific torque, the context specific velocity, and the context specific position limit are based on the determined stopping distance, maximum allowed velocity, and maximum allowed torque.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the test robot disclosed by Rhim with the simulations disclosed by Johnson with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this to increase system safety by limiting the region where a robot can apply a torque that causes pressure above the ISO standard if a person contacts the robot. (See Johnson [0044])
Regarding claim 14, Rhim teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the output signal represents a location-dependent speed specification along a machine path predefined for the robotic device, said speed specification being generated in particular by scaling a speed specification predefined originally for the predefined machine path in dependence on the calculated maximum speed, wherein the scaling may comprise a uniform scaling or a scaling adapted locally to the predefined machine path under consideration of a predefined process speed for the robotic device at one or more sub-sections of the machine path. (Rhim, Fig. 1, S150, [0091]-[0093])
Regarding claim 15, Rhim teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the permissible maximum speed is calculated in real time and the output signal represents an instantaneous permissible maximum speed for the robotic device. (Rhim, [0044])
Regarding claim 16, Rhim teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein if the collision is a clamped collision, the permissible maximum speed is calculated with the clamping-impact mode and with the quasi-static-clamping model, and the lower of the calculated maximum speeds is selected as the permissible maximum speed for the output. (Rhim, [0068] and [0074])
Regarding claim 19, Rhim teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein if the collision involves contact points at different human body sites, the output signal is dependent on the permissible maximum speed which corresponds to the shortest actual braking distance. (Rhim, [0086])
Regarding claim 20, Rhim teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein if the collision involves contact points at different machine points, the permissible maximum speed for all contact points is calculated and the output signal is dependent on the lowest permissible maximum speed. (Rhim, [0090])
Regarding claim 25, Rhim teaches wherein the collision force is within predefined biomechanical limits. (Rhim, [0112])
Regarding claim 26, Rhim teaches wherein the collision force does not stress human tissue beyond a predefined amount. (Rhim, [0112])
Regarding claim 27, Rhim teaches wherein the collision force does not exceed a deformation limit for human tissue. (Rhim, [0112])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 and 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANISS CHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3832 or email aniss.chad@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00pm EST.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/ANISS CHAD/
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights